Christian Florist Found Guilty of Discrimination for Declining ‘Gay Wedding’ Could Lose Home, Life Savings

StutzmanKENNEWICK, Wash. — A florist from Washington is in jeopardy of losing her business, home and life savings after a judge ruled against her on Wednesday for declining to fulfill an order for a same-sex ceremony, but rather provided a referral for the regular customer.

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, but referred him to three other florists that may help.

“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.

But 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.

  • Connect with Christian News

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. 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.

Last month, 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.

On Wednesday, Eckstrom granted summary judgment to Stutzman’s opponents, agreeing that she had committed an act of discrimination. The court also ordered Stutzman to provide full service to same-sex ceremonies, which includes not only accepting the order, but also delivering to the homosexual celebration, and assisting with the specific arrangements and decoration on-site.

“The court somehow concluded that forcing Barronelle to create expression against her will does not violate her free speech and free exercise rights under the state and federal constitutions,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs.

Additionally, as Eckstrom ruled last month that the state and the two homosexual men may collect damages and attorneys’ fees from both Arlene’s Flowers and Stutzman herself, her business, home and bank accounts are stated to be in jeopardy of being seized. Attorneys fees alone normally run hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“The message of these rulings is unmistakable: the government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued the case before the court. “Laws that are supposed to prohibit discrimination might sound good, but the government has begun to use these laws to hurt people—to force them to conform and to silence and punish them if they don’t violate their religious beliefs on marriage.”

“America would be a better place if citizens respected each others’ differences and the government still protected the freedom to have those differences,” Stutzman added. “Instead, the government is coming after me and everything I have just because I won’t live my life the way the state says I should.”

“I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment,” she said. “Others have the freedom to say or not say what they want to about marriage, and that’s all I’m asking for as well.”


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
  • Badkey

    Again with the religious hypocrisy. People who choose to follow religion get public accommodations from the federal government. It is illegal to deny them service in any place of public accommodations because they have chosen to be christian, hindu, muslim, etc…

    Yet here we see them decrying the exact same public accommodations laws when given to others in a minority of states. Such hypocrisy is ugly.

    Either abide by the law or work to end your own special protections because of your chosen lifestyle.

  • Gary

    Either endorse homosexuality and ssm, or face ruin from the government. America deserves to be destroyed. And God will see that it happens. And I am ready and willing to help.

    • Paul Hiett

      Sorry Gary, but there are laws that protect people from discriminating bigots such as this lady. If you don’t want to abide by the laws of this country, work to get them changed, or move away. This lady can’t be discriminated against because of her religion, and likewise she can’t discriminate against others because of sexual orientation. That’s the law…it works to protect everyone.

      • Gary

        To Hell with any law that forces people to endorse perversion. And to Hell with the government that made such a law.

        • Badkey

          And to hell with a government that gives special rights to those who choose to follow mythology.

          What’s wring with that?

        • Paul Hiett

          Your hatred aside, those laws protect you as well, and this hateful lady too…I’m sure if someone were discriminated against because of their religion, you’d be upset about it. AND you’d be happy our laws protected that person.

          • Gary

            I opposes ALL laws that try to force private citizens into associations they do not want.

          • Badkey

            Yet you have not started a legal movement to end the Civil Rights Act and the special rights it gives you.

            Why not?

          • Gary

            Because I know I could never get it done.

          • Badkey

            I thought that with your deity on your side, you could do anything…

            What’s up with that?

          • Paul Hiett

            There are no laws that have forced a private citizen into any type of association that they do not. Businesses make the conscientious choice to either run themselves lawfully, or risk lawsuits when they break the law. If you don’t like the laws that protect the citizens of this country from discrimination, then leave the country.

            It’s that simple.

          • Gary

            If you read the article, you find that is isn’t just the business that is at risk, but the woman and all of her possessions. So don’t try to say that no citizen is being forced, because that is not true.
            I am going to remain here and try to bring down the country.

          • Badkey

            That’s why incorporation is so important.

            An LLC is quite easy to set up and protects the business owner.

          • Gary

            I don’t think the government would allow the business owner to be protected in this case. The government is determined to persecute anyone who refuses to endorse homosexuality.

          • Badkey

            Sorry sweetcheeks… you obviously have no idea about what incorporation means, do you?

          • Gary

            I know what it means. And I also know the kind of people who are trying to ruin this woman. It wasn’t the business who refused the homosexuals, it was this woman. She is the one the government is after.

          • Badkey

            Your charm is exceeded only by your paranoia, Gary.

          • Paul Hiett

            She chose to ruin herself when she broke the law. The anti-discrimination laws work to protect all citizens, not just the ones you Christians pick and choose. Not to mention that if a business were to refuse service to someone just because they’re a Christian, that business would suffer the same penalty as well.

            Don’t like the laws governing business? Don’t open a business. It’s clear that this lady puts money over her choice of gods, since she knew what the laws were when she opened her business, and chose to make money instead. She has no one to blame but herself.

          • Gloria Lynn Truscott

            Excuse me what law was broken hmmm she has a right to her freedom of speech and religious rights and I read earlier a Christian went into a Gay establishment they refused the Chrisitians request for service cause of their beliefs and wow guess what not a thing was done to them no lawsuit nothing so tell me what is the difference here not a thing ,,

          • Badkey

            You speak of a “christian” asking for intentionally bigoted statements. No gay couple has done that.

            As the judge pointed out, behavior based on religion is not protected the same as belief.

          • Paul Hiett

            First and foremost, either link to that article you claim exists, or apologize for lying.

            Second, yes, laws were broken. You can’t discriminate in that state based on sexual orientation.

            Learn the law.

          • Gloria Lynn Truscott

            excuse me Badkey there were other Florists they could have went to but seems they target the Christians knowing they can get away with it and sorry this is wrong I stand by her and as a Christian I stand for God..

          • Paul Hiett

            This was a frequent customer. You obviously didn’t read the article. This business wasn’t “targeted” by any stretch of the imagination.

          • Oshtur

            Don’t feed the obvious trolls.

          • Badkey

            More enforcement of the hypocrisy.

            I expect nothing less.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “I oppose any law that forces people to endorse perversion.”

          Well then you should be happy to know that no such laws exist.

      • teresina126

        Um why not go to a Muslim florist? Where are you guys afraid if you go tonight you’ll get decapitated too? Muslims will refuse to serve you as well. But I don’t see anybody suing them.

        • Badkey

          Please list the address of a muslim florist in Washington.

        • Paul Hiett

          And the second a Muslim florist refuses service to anyone based on a protected status, that florist will be sued as well.

          Nice strawman there…

        • Gloria Lynn Truscott

          Got that right !

    • Badkey

      Alluah Akbar!!! You silly little man.

      • Gary

        Drop dead, and go to Hell, you wicked pervert.

        • Badkey

          Nah.

          • Gary

            The day is coming when you will drop dead, and you will go to Hell. Can’t come fast enough to suit me.

          • Badkey

            Nah.

    • Badkey

      You do realize that it’s a state government, and that 29 states have no such protections, don’t you? So.. it’s not the “American” government, it is state government.

      There are no federal protections in public accommodations for gay citizens at the federal level.

      • Norman Dostal

        there will be when dems get congress back (see 2016)

    • Peter Leh

      not true. this is a bad business decision on her part and poor legal counsel on the ADF’s part.

  • K2bOrnot2b

    So – the shops which had one entrance for the whites and another for blacks and said that their belief and interpretation of the Bible was that the races needed to be kept separate should have been allowed to carry on as before? Right?

  • John Thomson

    This woman is getting bad advice from the ADF. They are using her to advance their agenda. As a business owner, she has to comply with the law or get out of the business. She broke the law and instead of admitting a mistake, she doubled down and is now going to lose her money. BTW, the ADF won’t be paying her fines.

    • Paul Hiett

      I like how the ADF tries to twist the truth. The bottom line is that this lady opened a business that provides services. As such, she accepted the responsibility to abide by the rules governing business, and chose to broke them. No one is asking her to accept or “celebrate” gay marriage. She was asked to provide the service that her businesses sells, and she refused citing her own personal discriminatory beliefs.

      • Gary

        But they are demanding that she accept and celebrate ssm. That is why she was prosecuted.

        • Paul Hiett

          No one asked her to accept and celebrate anything. She was asked to provide a service, and refused, based on illegal discrimination. If you open a business, you don’t have to like your customers, but you do have to obey the laws, even the ones you don’t like.

        • Badkey

          Darlin’, nobody asked her to “celebrate” anything.

          Red herring are odd looking fish.

      • Gloria Lynn Truscott

        And she should be allowed that right I would have done the same and when a gay business refused service to a christian nothing was done and I bring this up to point out that then the standard should go both ways they should have a lawsuit against them

        • Badkey

          Did the gay customers intentionally ask for inflammatory messaging?

        • Badkey

          PS: The fundy asking for inflammatory messaging in Colorado is suing… so much for nothing being done.

        • Paul Hiett

          So a Christian wants a baker to send out a cake with a hate riddled message on it, and you think this is the same thing?

          Would you support the Christian if they had asked a black person to write “N*ggers Suck*” on a cake, and the baker then refused?

          How much hate is acceptable in your Christian world?

          • djshawman

            What was the hateful message?

          • SashaC

            “God hates gays.”

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “And she should be allowed that right”

          Then your issue is with the “public accommodation” sections of the Civil Rights Act as well as subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation. You are certainly free to work to have that portion removed.

          ” should go both ways they should have a lawsuit against them”

          Absolutely. Do you have details?

  • Gary

    The florist was naïve. She did not understand the threat she was faced with and was unprepared to avoid it. She also is a bit of a hypocrite. She had no objection to doing business with the perverts, until the “wedding” came up. She should have known this was going to happen and taken steps to protect herself in advance. Now, her negligence and hypocrisy are being rewarded in the way her enemies reward their opponents.

    • Paul Hiett

      She’s the enemy here, not the customers. She entered into her business knowing and accepting the laws. She should have either not opened that business, or accept that patrons of all types would frequent her establishment, and followed the law.

      • Gary

        She is your enemy because she won’t endorse perversion. But she was unwise in how she conducted her business. She should have known that the laws of Washington favor the homosexuals. It seems she tried to ignore that instead of finding ways to combat it that would make her prosecution difficult.

        • Paul Hiett

          No, she’s refusing to do business with customers and discriminating against them based on a protected status. She can’t be discriminated against for her religion, and she can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation. These are the laws, plain and simple, and she chose to break them. That’s it, nothing more.

          • Gary

            She broke a bad and immoral law. A law that decent people would never have passed.

          • Paul Hiett

            You can believe it’s bad or immoral, but it changes nothing. I wonder how you’d feel if a Muslim florist refused to provide that same service for a Christian wedding. Would you be so quick to defend the florist then?

          • Gary

            I would defend the florist. The Christians could find someone who wanted their business.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sure you would.

          • Gary

            Why do you want to force people into associations they don’t want?

          • Paul Hiett

            Because we’ve already gone through civil rights fights. Why are you so insistent that the majority get to discriminate against the minority?

          • Gary

            I don’t care who discriminates against who in private affairs.

          • Paul Hiett

            Of course you don’t, because you’re in the majority…a nice white Christian boy who would never understand what it’s like to be discriminated against.

          • Gary

            BS. You discriminate against people you don’t like every day. But you don’t want anyone else to have the same freedom.

          • Paul Hiett

            Explain to me how I discriminate against others every day?

          • Gary

            You choose which businesses you shop at. When you choose one business you automatically discriminate against their competitors. If you own a Toyota, you have discriminated against all the other car makers. I could go on and on.

          • Paul Hiett

            And you’d be 100% wrong, but I don’t expect you to understand.

          • Gary

            I am right. I am also moral. And you can’t claim to be either of those things.

          • Paul Hiett

            You still think morality comes from your Bible. I think that’s cute.

          • Gary

            Moral rules are made by God alone. And He enforces his laws.

          • Badkey

            Why should businesses be able to refuse certain tax payers when the infrastructure that they use to run their business is (such as roads) paid for by all tax payers?

          • Gary

            The infrastructure belongs as much to the business and its owners as it does to the customers.

          • Badkey

            That is not an answer to my question.

            Why should businesses be able to refuse certain tax payers when the infrastructure that they use to run their business is (such as roads) paid for by all tax payers?

          • Gary

            Why should taxpayers be able to refuse to do business with any business in their town?

          • Badkey

            Wat?

          • Gary

            Why is it fair for people to be able to choose which business they patronize, but it is not fair for the business to choose which customers they want to do business with?

          • Badkey

            Do the customers profit financially off of said infrastructure?

          • Gary

            Of course. They have their own jobs or businesses. And they also profit by buying the products or services they buy from others.

          • Badkey

            And the same laws apply to their jobs, employers, and businesses.

            Giving currency for goods is not profit. It is an exchange in which the business profits financially.

          • Gary

            The customer thinks he profits from the transaction, or else he would not have bought the product or service.

          • Oshtur

            They did choose, they ran a business that made an offer to the general public. No one wandered into a random door and demanded the occupants sell them anything. The business put the offer on the altar.

          • Oshtur

            “Those who enter into a profession as a matter of choice, necessarily face regulation as to their own conduct and their voluntarily imposed personal limitations cannot override the regulatory schemes which bind others in that activity.”

          • Gary

            The conduct of everyone is limited. Except for the choices made by customers. Their freedom is not limited by laws.

          • Paul Hiett

            They also don’t profit from choosing which businesses to engage in.

          • Gary

            So now you object to people making a profit? Customers also profit from buying the products or services of the businesses they patronize.

          • Badkey

            So now exchange of currency for product is called profit for the one spending the currency? How does that work?

          • Gary

            If the buyer did not think that exchanging the currency for the product or service was beneficial (profitable) to them, they likely would not have made the transaction.

          • Badkey

            So, profit now means beneficial in financial terms? OK.

          • Oshtur

            You are flaying against the law. This case lost, every argument the ADF could think of was in the brief – AND the kitchen sink – and each was answered in the 60 page ruling.

            Sticking with losing arguments is a losing strategy.

  • Oshtur

    Gosh it went down just as predicted. The fine is trivial and I’m sure the ADF will pony up for the attorney fees since it was their poor legal advice that got Baronnelle in this predicament in the first place.

    The Washington AG offered to drop the charges if she would promise to obey the law and she could have and just done what the business is doing now – not offer wedding floral arrangements. But the ADF had an agenda and sacrificed her on its altar.

    Paying her legal fees is the least they can do.

    The 60 page ruling is at the AG website and clearly explains step by step why this case lost.

    “Those who enter into a profession as a matter of choice, necessarily face regulation as to their own conduct and their voluntarily imposed personal limitations cannot override the regulatory schemes which bind others in that activity.”

  • Gary

    In states that protect sodomites from discrimination, you cannot be in any business that might have something to do with ssm, unless you are willing to help with the ssm.

    • Badkey

      In the United States you cannot be in any business that might have something to do with anything, unless you are willing to help with the spread of religion. Thus is the nature of religious hypocrisy.

    • Oshtur

      They could have sued for religious discrimination of their belief that includes same-sex marriage and won just the same. There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offering, simple as that.

      Considering you would have had this poor lady do just as she did, I’m sure you will be happy to chip in and pay the legal fees that the state is legally required to try and recoup, right?

      • Gary

        If I had been her advisor, I would have had her do things differently. For starters, I would have told her that the business she was in is a very risky one if she does not want to comply with the homosexual agenda. And, I would have advised her to make it plain to everyone that she would prefer not to do business with perverts by placing signs in her business that make that clear. Hopefully, that would have made the sodomites less likely to want to do business with her thus lessening her risk. But it would not have eliminated all of the risk. She would have been better off to choose another business, or relocate.

        • Paul Hiett

          Just imagine if she had simply decided to continue conducting business
          in accordance with the laws she agreed to when she opened up her
          business in the first place.

        • Oshtur

          Or simply just not sell wedding floral services. There’s no where in the US to run – everyone and anyone’s right to believe in same-sex religious marriage is protected in all 50 states, DC, and the territories.

          Again, there is no right to religiously discrimination against customers taking a business up on its public offer. Can’t sell to people of all beliefs, don’t offer it to the general public.

          Simple.

          Are you going to donate to her fine payment?

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “I would have told her that the business she was in is a very risky ”

          Being a florist is not risky regarding turning away customers based upon sexuality. The issue for her was that she chose to offer arrangements for weddings. If she did not provide flowers for any weddings, she would have been fine turning this couple away.

          She is most certainly free to place whatever signs she cares to in her windows regarding her views. However, as she discovered after taking the action she did, sharing her views had a dramatic impact on her business, as most people were unwilling to do business with her.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Exactly correct. Just as you must be willing to provide your services to a wedding between two people of different races, even if you believe the Bible says that the races should not mix.

  • Badkey

    A quote from the judge that this site has ignored…

    “For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief,” Ekstrom wrote. “The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”

    Nothing new happening here… just religious types upset that they’re not given preferential treatment. That’s all it is.

    • Gary

      I don’t want preferential treatment. I want everyone to be able to choose who they do business with. The customer has that freedom now, usually. It is only fair that the business owner has the same freedom.

      • Paul Hiett

        So it’s ok to discriminate based on religion, sexual orienation, being male or female, skin color…all of those things should be allowed by businesses, right?

        • Gary

          Yes. Customers can discriminate against businesses for any or all of those reasons, legally. The business should have the same freedom.

          • Paul Hiett

            Said by a true, white Christian.

          • Gary

            How do you know I’m white?

          • Paul Hiett

            LOL…cute.

          • djshawman

            Paul is an angry elf.

          • Bruce Morrow

            Sounds like someone hates “white Christians”.

          • Bruce Morrow

            If I owned a business I would NOT cater to homosexual “marriages” either. Glad this woman has taken a hard stand that will be costing her everything. She counted the COST to follow Jesus and the word of God. We need more Christians who will follow her godly ensample!

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “I don’t want preferential treatment. I want everyone to be able to choose who they do business with. ”

        Oh, that’s good know. Then gay couples wanting to get married also aren’t seeking preferential treatment. They are just wanting to be able to choose their mate like everyone else.

        • Gary

          I have always been willing for everyone to be under the same laws regarding marriage that I am under. But that is not what you want. I also want business owners to be as free as their potential customers are. But you don’t want that either.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I have always been willing for everyone to be under the same laws regarding marriage that I am under.”

            No, you weren’t. Once the courts determined that existing laws regarding marriage did not prohibit two citizens of the same gender from entering into civil marriage, you supporting changing the law so that such marriages were specifically prohibited. You did not want everyone to be under the same law. You wanted new laws because you did not want everyone to be treated equally under the law.

    • Oboehner

      We’ll just give preferential treatment to sexual deviants.

      • Paul Hiett

        How about just giving equal treatment for everyone?

        • Gary

          That is what I have been asking for, but you don’t want.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, you clearly stated that you want to go back to a time when white Christians could hate everyone, and discriminate against anyone they want. That didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now, which is why we have laws to protect us.

          • Gary

            I want everyone to be legally able to choose with whom they associate. That means that you and I have the same freedom. I don’t force you to have anything to do with me, and you don’t force me to have anything to do with you. It is obvious from your comments that you want the government to force white Christians to do what you want. You are a bigot.

          • Paul Hiett

            LOL, again, spoken like a true, white Christian, who just so happens to be in the majority in this country, and knows absolutely nothing about intolerance, persecution, discrimination, and hate.

            No one should ever be allowed to discriminate against another based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs.

          • Gary

            That is your opinion. You want to force people to do business with you who don’t want your business. The only difference between you and the Mafia is that you get the government to be your enforcer.

          • Norman Dostal

            tax money-case closed

          • KenS

            Therein lies the problem, you guys are lumping sexual orientation in with race and gender, which are the way you are born, whereas sexual orientation is a choice, and religious belief is already protected, which happens to in some religions have something said about sexual orientation, therefore cannot be regulated in a country that has religious freedom without quashing on that religious freedom. That is the conundrum we find ourselves in here.

          • djshawman

            You are a hateful bigot. You seem to be only concerned with the color of people’s skin…particularly if their skin is white.

          • Gloria Lynn Truscott

            I agree Gary why should anyone be forced to doing something that goes against their beliefs where is our freedom of speech and religion and might I had a Christian went into a Gay business and was refused service cause of their beliefs and not a thing was done no lawsuit no hateful comments nothing

          • Badkey

            For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief,” Ekstrom wrote.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            No one is forced. Owning a business is a choice. What products the business offers in a choice. There is no “forcing”.

          • Paul Hiett

            Hey Gloria, are you even aware that the bakery owner is NOT gay? She’s a Christian…she just didn’t want to write such a hateful message.

            Nice try though.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “a Christian went into a Gay business and was refused service cause of their beliefs and not a thing was done no lawsuit no hateful comments nothing”

            That would most certainly be a violation of the law. I’d be most interested to know details on this case. Can you provide them?

          • Bruce Morrow

            White Christian HATER above folks! Goes by the name of Paul Hiett. Be thou ware.

        • Oboehner

          Sure, by not having to accept your choice.

          • Paul Hiett

            No on is asking anyone to accept anyone’s “choice”…but businesses do need to run according to the law.

            I doubt you’ll understand this.

          • Oboehner

            And accepting someone else’s deviance is the law?

          • Badkey

            Sweetie, you don’t have to “accept” anything.

            You can be just like your kin in the KKK and nobody can take that animosity and hostility away from you.

          • Oboehner

            …and the award for over-dramatics goes to…
            Just because I don’t share your love of pedos, necros, and gays doesn’t mean I’m “kin” to the KKK.

          • Spoob

            Try using that word “deviance” in a courtroom and see how long you go without being fined.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, you don’t have to accept it. You can hate it, and speak out about it all you want. But, if you own a business, you can’t refuse service to a customer based on your hate.

            I don’t think you understand how laws work.

          • Oboehner

            My hate, LOL. I don’t think you understand how lifestyle choice works.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sexual orientation has never been a choice, btw. Regardless, sexual orientation is protected by law against discrimination.

            Sorry you don’t like the laws that prevent you from acting on your hate, but they exist.

          • djshawman

            Perhaps it isn’t a choice, though there is no scientific evidence to prove that…acting on it is a choice, however.

          • Oboehner

            It has always been a choice, but that’s ok for the perverts to run around shutting down Christian businesses acting on their hate.

          • Oshtur

            And why wouldn’t “Christians businesses acting on their hate” be shut down for operating illegally? Its the businesses that refused customers due to prejudice illegally.

          • Oboehner

            Sure, perverts targeting people with opposing beliefs is fine and dandy.

          • Oshtur

            By perverts you mean “Christian businesses acting on their hate”?

          • Oboehner

            No I mean sexual deviants running amuck ruing people’s lives because their little sicko feelings got hurt.

          • djshawman

            Disagreeing with someone does not equate to hate…but I doubt you’ll get that.

          • Peter Leh

            you dont have to accept it. this is not why she was cited.

          • Oboehner

            Sure.

          • Spoob

            The only deviant here is yourself. Taking delight at your disgusting hate-catchphrases like “turd burglar” and “fur trader” basically revokes you of your right to be called a human being.

          • Oboehner

            And you want me to accept sodomy? You’re a riot.

          • Spoob

            I really don’t care what you and your boyfriend get up to in private.

  • TOMIAS

    If she had refused flowers for a Black and white wedding or an all black wedding she would hve faced the same charges. We are a group that people try to discriminate against dailhy. Remember the church was against black and white marriages at one time alsgo. Also thought that blacks should remain slaves. The Baptist Church split over this.

    • Paul Hiett

      It amazes the capacity in which people can hate others for the silliest of things.

    • Gary

      So you want to force people who don’t like you to do business with you? Why don’t you just find someone who wants your business?

      • Paul Hiett

        Your ignorance knows no bounds. We had that in this country for many, many years. Good white Christian folk were allowed to hate everyone…create bathrooms and water fountains just to keep the races apart. They lynched blacks, gays, atheists…they hated on everyone.

        You’re nothing more than a spiteful, hateful bigot, and fortunately the wheels of time, slow as they may turn, will eventually see your ilk fade into oblivion.

        • Gary

          Water fountains and restrooms owned by the government should be open to everyone. Your hatred for whites and for Christians is evident.

          • Paul Hiett

            I can’t believe anyone one else would actually call you a fellow Christian. The hateful things I see you post on here…hoping people die and go to hell.

            What’s it like going through life with so much hate inside of you?

          • Gary

            Ask yourself the same question.

          • Paul Hiett

            I didn’t think you’d answer.

            You don’t get it…I don’t hate anyone. I live by the rule of treat others as I’d want them to treat me.

            Sorry that you can’t do that in your life.

          • Gary

            Of course you hate. Your comments make that clear. You want to be forced to associate with those not of your own choosing? If you want to be treated as you treat others then that is what would happen.

          • Badkey

            Paul is not calling for death for law-abiding US citizens.

            You are. Shall I post the screen shot again?

          • Paul Hiett

            You have, literally, no idea what you’re talking about anymore. Your desire to hate is clearly overwhelming your ability to discuss anything rationally.

            A business must agree to abide by the terms of the laws associated with running a business. The advantage is on the consumer to pick and choose which businesses to frequent. That’s simply how it all works. A business may not choose who their customers are, plain and simple.

          • Gary

            You want the government to give freedoms to customers that they don’t give to business owners. That is unfair.

          • Badkey

            You want to kill law-abiding citizens.

            You call that “fair”?

          • Gary

            Your are a liar. I do not want the government to execute law-abiding citizens.

          • Paul Hiett

            You are clearly not a business owner, nor could you ever be. You simply don’t understand commerce.

      • TOMIAS

        Nope just pointing out how foolish she is. She is breaking the law. If she refuses to change her out look than find another business to go into

        • Thomas Rush

          Really, Weddings are part of the real issues here?

    • Thomas Rush

      Christ, I swear you must have been raised in an echo chamber, with a television tuned to FOX NEWS on the open end.

  • Peter Leh

    It has just dawned on me the ADF will not be losing money for poor legal advise. Let that be a lesson….

    • Paul Hiett

      Yep…follow the laws governing business, and this type of thing won’t happen.

  • Badkey

    Folks, when you deal with Gary, you’re dealing with a man who is endorsing the execution of law-abiding US citizens.

    • Spoob

      He supports execution of homosexuals and the idea of a Christian theocracy. I don’t engage him in conversation much these days, there are people less crazy but just as hateful to engage with.

    • Gary

      I have never asked for the execution of law-abiding citizens. There is no reason for the government to execute someone who has not violated a law that carries a capital punishment penalty.

      • Paul Hiett

        You do hope people die and go to hell though. You’ve said as much.

        • Badkey

          “Capital punishment for homosex” is a call for law-abiding gay citizens to be executed.

          Gary still thinks his deity’s laws are US civil law.

        • Gary

          Everyone dies. And most go to Hell. Whether I hope they do or not. But I have not asked for the execution of people who don’t brake the law.

          • Norman Dostal

            man, youre dumb. Hell? what next?

      • Badkey

        What you call “homosex” is not against US law.

        • Gary

          I know. The law would have to be changed before anyone would be executed for homosexual behavior.

          • Badkey

            And that’s what you want.

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you want that to be law?

          • Badkey

            Refresh your browser to see the screen shot I posted where he’s calling for that exact thing.

          • Gary

            Yes. But the law won’t change under the current government.

          • Norman Dostal

            youre old and will be dead soon so stop worrying

          • lynn

            Do you wish Gary was dead? Looks like it. I don’t agree with him on the capital punishment thing, but he has his right to his opinions just like everybody else.

        • lynn

          It used to be in most states.

    • Paul Hiett

      The hate inside of him is unbelievable. If Heaven was real, I’d love to watch him get tossed out.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Your right to private religious expression ends when it harms others. Discrimination in business based on race, religion and sexual orientation harms individuals and society.

    Your religion is not a “get out of jail” card to break the law.

    • Dan

      A bakery is not doing harm to individuals in society when they will not do a gay wedding when fifty other bakeries in the area will do the service. It is only harming the baker when the government goes after them.

      So it is actually the government that is doing the harm. When can we go after the government for the harm they are causing this baker. Malcolm you are for protecting such bakers, right?

      • Paul Hiett

        That’s just wrong. Look up the word “precedent” and try and see why you’re wrong. I may have to explain it like I would a five year old, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

        • Dan

          When the precedent is wrong Paul, it is wrong. Time for the government to actually protect the citizens, not harm them.

          • Paul Hiett

            Allowing a business to discriminate sets a bad precedent, as it then allows all others to do the same. Take a look at the race riots in this country a few decades ago, and then maybe you’ll understand why we don’t allow that kind of intolerance in business anymore.

            I knew I’d have to explain it in childlike terms, but jeezus, at least try?

          • Dan

            Intolerance to believe that something is morally wrong?

            That is intolerant Paul. You are being intolerant to Christianity and Islam. Why are you intolerant?

          • Paul Hiett

            You can believe what ever you want. I also support your right to say what ever you want. Hate as much as you want to hate, and whomever you want to hate.

            However, when that hate turns into actions, then I have a problem, and so does the law. That’s why you, and this baker, are wrong.

          • Dan

            The action was taken by the state, not the bakery. So the wrong that has occurred is by the state.

          • Peter Leh

            the action was triggered by the owner not abiding by her covenant with the state

          • Dan

            And when it is following God or the state, I say follow God.

          • Peter Leh

            why not do both and satisfy both? it can be done and has be my entire point. everything you have suggested is unnecessary.

          • Dan

            Peter, how can it be done? I am really interested.

          • Peter Leh

            Copied from above:

            “ok. and if the business believes the law is unjust the business may
            and can and with the states blessing change the registration to a
            private or religious corp and continue under those guides and covenants.

            see what i mean?”

            the hitching post did these and so far has satisfied the state.

          • Dan

            A wedding chapel is different from a bakery, is it not?

          • Norman Dostal

            only if the chapel is privately maintained and run

          • Peter Leh

            i posted a news link for the hitching post, they did it. let me know if you cant find it

          • Paul Hiett

            How many adulterers have you stoned lately?

          • Dan

            Paul, when you can prove that this was not given to a specific people for their law and that I live in that nation, we can talk about me following that law. But if I do not live in that nation, but another; you will have to show me where that law has been given for that other nation as well.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s God’s law, remember?

          • Dan

            Yes, God’s law given to a specific people. It was the law for a specific nation. I happen not to live in that nation or live under that law, do you live in that nation?

          • Norman Dostal

            that’s just religious nonsense-your god aint part of our law

          • Dan

            Norman, when the state’s law goes against God’s, we follow God.

          • Norman Dostal

            nope-its the law

          • Norman Dostal

            the old bigot can believe what she wants…

          • Norman Dostal

            we are protecting the people-from bigoted religious nonsense

      • Malcolm Swall

        “A bakery is not doing harm to individuals in society when they will not do a gay wedding when fifty other bakeries in the area will do the service.”

        The community that passed the anti-discrimination laws obviously feel differently, as do I. Discrimination in business harms individuals AND society. YOU don’t want to acknowledge it, but the rest of us see it clearly.

        • Mary Kilbride

          I beg to differ. If you agree that this is “justice” you see nothing clearly and we will fight forever until this is righted.

          • dark477

            No you won’t. you’ll pitch a fit for a few weeks them move on just like every other time some bigot gets it into their heads that they’re above the law.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Your ad hominem attack on me offers no argument for your position, or against mine.

            You imagine it is just to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Racists thought it was just to discriminate on the basis of race. Both are illegal

      • Oshtur

        Sorry Dan, one of the cases cited in the ruling is about a man discriminated against in the pruchase of a Slurpee™ at a 7-11. There is no such thing as innocuous discrimination.

        Either the business is making a genuine offer of sale in complaince with the law or they aren’t and the offer is fraudlent, as it was in this case.

        Cant sells something to people of all beliefs, then don’t offer it for sale to the public. Simple.

        • Dan

          No, it is never that simple Oshtur. Having a baker forced to go into a gay wedding and help celebrate is beyond a person being denied a Slurpee.

          Forcing a baker to have to set up such a celebration is forcing the baker approve of this.

          If that was done to me, I believe the response would be, “You will not like what the cake says and you will not like the decorations. This is because for such a wedding the cake would not be a ‘wedding cake’ because this is not a wedding. I would suggest going to one of these other bakers.”

          • Paul Hiett

            You just don’t get how commerce works in this country.

          • Dan

            Paul what is wrong with providing a product to the customers that they would never accept in response to such bullying by the customer and the state?

          • Norman Dostal

            its not bullying if we all pay taxes and our money supports the business-its justice

          • Peter Leh

            Dan you can do what you say if the business was set up properly from the beginning. This was bad business for her and poor legal advice from ADF

          • Dan

            Peter I agree that it was poor legal advice and that they should have gone after the state in response.

          • Peter Leh

            that would have been poor advice as well

            the state has given her the answer to her problem before there had to be a problem. this is ALL on her

          • Dan

            Close the business? That is not an answer. Leave the state? Again likely not something the owner wants to do.

            I think the answer is to allow the business to be a business. When another business in the area is more than willing to do the cake and maybe even do it for free to celebrate this type of event, they could just go there and there would be no problem.

          • Peter Leh

            “Close the business? That is not an answer. Leave the state?”

            Dan. no need to close down or leave. The state law is clear for all to read. they don;t want business to leave. There are many ways to set up your business to satisfy the state covenant AND the business owners conscience. the state will not do it FOR you. that is why this is all unnecessary. any fine by the stateis her fault and unnecessary.

          • Dan

            For a Christian business owner that is exactly what I would state is the only answer and I believe that every Christian business owner should write the AG and tell him the reason they are leaving is because of his actions. Now that will not occur, but that is what should occur when the AG does this to a business. And if that did occur, it would cause change by the AG for the good.

          • Peter Leh

            what the AG did or the business did? the AG is only doing what the business asked the AG to do: enforce the covenants agree to between the state and the business owner.

          • Dan

            No, the business believes that the law is unjust and in the wrong. That is why it must be violated at every opportunity and why any Christian should be opposed.

          • Peter Leh

            ok. and if the business believes the law is unjust the business may and can and with the states blessing change the registration to a private or religious corp and continue under those guides and covenants.

            see what i mean?

          • Dan

            And what would it take to be religious? That is not normally an option for such a business.

          • Norman Dostal

            nope-most Christians aren’t bigots

          • Norman Dostal

            no one cares what a handful of bigots does! Most will be dead soon anyway so no big whup

          • Peter Leh

            “When another business in the area is more than willing to do the cake
            and maybe even do it for free to celebrate this type of event, they
            could just go there and there would be no problem.”

            Well dan, we have tried this before. the reason why we can;t allow it is because when given a chance the business owners could not behave.

            there is no surprise here. the fine is exactly what every business owner expected to happen

          • Dan

            Well, maybe there would not be a bakery willing to celebrate such an event. That would also tell us something. But if it is true what people are saying about peoples beliefs, that could never be the case. When the state is the bully, we have to stand with the citizens, not the state.

          • Peter Leh

            how can the state be the bully when it is the business that agreed to the covenant in the first place?

          • Dan

            The business was open prior to this. It was later that this was put in place. I guess if and when the business found out about the requirement to bake cakes for gay weddings, the business should have immediately closed or moved out of the state?

          • Peter Leh

            they could. bit really they just needed to change their registration with the SOS.

          • Oshtur

            The business could have been prosecuted under religious dscrimination just as easily and Washington has prohibitied that against customers since 1949.

            An the soultion is the one they business has actually done – just doesn’t sell wedding floral arangements anymore. The ironly is they could have accepted the AG’s generous offer to drop the suit with the merely promise to obey the law in the future and done just what she has already done and avoided all fines and expenses.

            Again, pride and bad advice from the ADF.

          • Dan

            Promise Caesar that they will follow Caesar and not God. I think there is something wrong with that.

          • Oshtur

            God never told anyone they couldn’t sell flowers to a customer of this world, that’s the real issue.

            But bringing up the idolatrous coin is relevant to this issue – here a Pharisee pulled out a coin with Ceasar’s face on it and words proclaiming him a god to boot out of his pocket – might as well have been a golden calf. So what did Jesus do? Point out to the Jew that they were sinning just carrying it around, that giving to the romans would be the same as making a pagan offering? No, He said ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars’.

            Now why would Jesus do that considering God’s attitude toward idolatry? Probably because if you asked at the time He would have leaned in and whispered ‘I don’t know if you know this, but Caesar isn’t a god at all!” Just as God told us about meat that had been on a pagan altar, it is empty ritual, not demonic or satanic. After a pagan sacrifice its just a dead animal on a stone slab, no different than any other dead animal. Pagan ritual is merely empty, void, and a waste of time.

            There is no sin in givng taxes to the Romans, there is no sin in eating the meat from a pagan altar, there is no sin selling to those of this world, and there is no sin in selling wedding floral arrangments for a wedding you don’t think is real -no different than providing them for a play. Whatever is happening is at worst empty, not sinful.

            And again, if someone’s tangent on Scripture is different its a simple solution – don’t offer wedding floral arrangements for sale to anyone.

          • Dan

            However, you do not cause offense to your weaker brother. So when one is offended by the eating of the meat that has been sacrificed on a pagan altar, you do not eat the meat to protect your brother. The same applies here with business.

          • Oshtur

            Exactly! See, even then the Church was of different mind on this issue and obviously they cannot require customer’s who are not of their church to take Paul’s advice. The only solution is to not offer something for sale you refuse to sell to people of any belief.

            I mean that is what Baronelle has already done, why is your side so resistant to taking the actions necessary to act both in accordance with their faith and the law? Again, she could have done this from the get go – accept the AG’s offer to drop the charges, stop selling wedding floral arrangements as the businsss already have. Everyone gets what they want.

          • Dan

            Not everyone, Baronelle could not sell flower arrangements. Also, Baronelle being the weaker sister here is being harmed. So the stronger brother should protect her, not harm her as he is doing here.

          • Oshtur

            The customer’s aren’t her brother at all.

          • Norman Dostal

            yes Im afraid so

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            They could have closed, moved out of state, or no longer offered wedding cakes. Any of those would have worked. Just as if she didn’t want to cater to interracial marriages if she thought that the Bible taught that the races should not mix – as many self-proclaimed Christians believe.

          • Mary Kilbride

            Gay is not a race. It’s a lifestyle. She didn’t refuse to serve interracial couples…obviously. She never had problems and was a successful business. You know that there are many types of businesses and many types of business owners with various beliefs. I guess I should go into a bar and make a complaint that they sell beer and alcohol…and sue them for making me wretch at the smell of liquor. I want to have church services there, and I want them to scrub it out, get rid of the liqueur so I can have my service. If not…they are discriminating against me, because after all, I’m sure they have some great parties there…well, I want a party , too and I want them to get rid of their liqueur for my party.I mean, they could quit selling alcohol and move to another state after 40 years, right?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Gay is not a race”

            Agreed. How is that relevant? If the contention is that business owners should be able to turn clients away based on the owner’s religious beliefs, and a business owner’s religious beliefs are that the races should not mix, then it should be completely acceptable for the owner to turn away a mixed-race couple. And thus is the problem with allowing exemptions based upon religious belief. A person would be able to say that anything is their religious belief – and thus any discrimination would be allowed.

            “I guess I should go into a bar and make a complaint that they sell beer and alcohol…and sue them for making me wretch at the smell of liquor.”

            You have a basic misunderstanding of the law. The law covers restrictions on the ability to turn away customers based on certain criteria/ It has nothing to do with you choosing to go into a business and then complaining about the services the business offers. There would be no basis for you to sue a business because the smell of what they offered made you wretch.

            “I want to have church services there”

            If they rent the facility out for private parties, they would not be allowed to turn away your request to have a service there.

            “and I want them to scrub it out, get rid of the liqueur so I can have my service. If not…they are discriminating against me”

            Again, a basic misunderstanding of the law. If the business scrubbed out their business and removed the liquor for other private events, but refused to do so for yours, then yes, you would have a basis for a discrimination suit. Otherwise, you would not. You do not, as a customer, have the right to demand that a business do something for you that they do not do for others. You only have the right to demand that they not discriminate in what they do provide based upon the customer being in a covered category.

            If you gain a better understanding of the law, it would be helpful to you in coming to conclusions regarding the issue.

            “It’s a lifestyle”

            It is no more, nor no less, a “lifestyle” than being heterosexual is a lifestyle.

          • Peter Leh

            The hitching post was “open to the public” then changed to a religious corp to protect itself:

            http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/kootenai-county/2014/10/24/aclu-hitching-post-now-a-religious-corporation/17860947/

          • Mary Kilbride

            The business never agreed to this. They were in business for 40 years and very successful. This new “law” and an unjust one at that, only came into effect days before this all happened. Read the article. They didn’t get to have a say in this new law…. becaue they would not have. The citizens in most states have expressed that they are clearly against this, but liberal judges just say .. ahhh…nevermind. I will do what I please. I will walk all over the constitution. Remember, there are many facets of the constitution and it may become your turn to be destroyed and maybe then you will see the pain and the wrong of this.

          • Peter Leh

            Mary. There are many things that have changed since this company, and mine, has started. What of it?

            as business owners we “roll with the punches”, so to speak.

            even if the owner did not agree with the law, it is still her responsibility to protect herself by changing the business policy or changing her registration.

            ask you self this. with all the “new” laws why has dan cathy of chickfila not been cited? Because he and i and Arlene’s flowers must follow the law.

            ask any business owner.

          • Norman Dostal

            no. most of us agree with the public accommodation laws. We cannot allow bigots to make up whatever sheit they see fit to! What next? No Jews because they killed Christ?

          • Mary Kilbride

            They aren’t making up anything. This is the way it has been in this country since its inception. Otherwise, she would not have had such a successful business for so long. Thankfully that even in light of the injustice done to her, she still has not hatred or animosity towards the bullies. She still loves them. Incredible… but, maybe somebody around them will see that Christ light and more good then bad will come of this. God can take all things done wrong and make them good….for those who love God.

          • Mary Kilbride

            Just hope you are not doing something that the bully government decides it doesn’t like and doles out the same unjust punishment to you. It’s all well and good when you get to enjoy watching this very good person who has worked hard all her life get buried…. it won’t be so funny if it happens to you and this government you all are building? It’s not the great government that made America great over these years.

          • Peter Leh

            “Just hope you are not doing something that the bully government decides
            it doesn’t like and doles out the same unjust punishment to you.”

            thanks mary you are very kind. 🙂 It is up to the business owner to keep up with the ever changing laws and regulations. I do my best.

            “It’s all well and good when you get to enjoy watching this very good person who has worked hard all her life get buried…. ”

            actually, as a business owner, i am heart broken. this was so unnecessary.

            she had bad legal advice and made a poor business decision.

          • Norman Dostal

            no. what if it was the only gas station for 100 miles?

          • Dan

            They are underserved and in need of competition? What that would also show is that there is to much regulations and that there needs to be less regulations in such businesses.

          • Mark Cragin

            Straw Man alert!

          • Mary Kilbride

            There is no “what if” because that is not the case as the business owner gave the name of three other businesses who would be willing to do it, one said they would do it for free…. so, where is the problem? There is none. What this is, is not a person harmed, but a person who found a nice way to pick up some easy money so they destroyed her to get it. I hope they had just a wonderful wedding and that this haunts them.

          • Mary Kilbride

            Her business has been successful for 40 years? Seems to me like she was doing something right. Until this new government stepped in and said they have decided that all must go along with the gay agenda and if not? They will be buried.

          • Oshtur

            Neither the bakery or the florist were invited to the wedding in any of thee cases.

            Again, they don’t get to decide for someone else if their wedding passes the owner’s religous muster. If the business owner can’t sell something to the general public regardless of their faith, don’t offer it to the general public at all. Simple solution in compliance with the law.

            But puff themselves up with self-righteousness and judgment as this business owner did and they will fall – Pride was the first sin.

          • Dan

            Oshtur it was ordered “The court also ordered Stutzman to provide full service to same-sex ceremonies, which includes not only accepting the order, but also delivering to the homosexual celebration, and assisting with the specific arrangements and decoration on-site.”

            Now prove that is not crossing the line.

          • Gary

            Homosexuals, and their enablers insist on having things their way, and they will not tolerate opposition. Anything they want is considered a right.

          • Norman Dostal

            just equal treatment, Bubba

          • Lisa

            Equal treatment to people who defy God’s laws? No way! The florist treated them fairly and offered them a referral which i think was fair. On the other hand,if you are in business you are going to run into this situation(s) more often than you think. You should be in a different business that will not conflict with her religious beliefs..

          • Paul Hiett

            So is the protection you receive for your rights. Everyone should enjoy equal protection, not just the good, white Christian-folk.

          • Mary Kilbride

            And where is it that the “good, white Christian folk” are being protected at all? Why is it only the good white gay folk who are receiving the protection and I have nothing against gays, but I DO have something against bullies.

          • Steve67

            “Everyone should enjoy equal protection, not just the good, white Christian-folk.”

            Yeah because that’s what Christians are saying; that only white Christians should have rights. This is typical of LGBT rhetoric. When they don’t have a substantive argument, build a straw-man. And what does race have to do with this? For all you know, none of the people on this thread are white.

          • lynn

            I am pretty sure the black Christians and the White Christians all have the Same Lord and God. There is not a race issue within the Christian churches. At least that is true in my neck of the woods. Race has nothing at all to do with this issue. Are you one of those race baters?

          • Oshtur

            Actually if you would bother to download the ruling you would know that is a total fabrication by the ADF, as they are prone to do.

            Yes, if they offer services they are required by law to give full access to all services, but they need not sell wedding floral arrangements at all if they can’t do so legally.

            again,

            “Those who enter into a profession as a matter of choice, necessarily face regulation as to their own conduct and their voluntarily imposed personal limitations cannot override the regulatory schemes which bind others in that activity.”

          • Dan

            And the problem is that no one should be bound in such a way by the state. That is the problem here.

          • Paul Hiett

            No Dan, you’re simply wrong…no business should be allowed to discriminate.

          • Oshtur

            Then repeal the first amendment, all the civil rights laws, the state constitutions, and the rest because there has been no right to religiously discriminate against another citizen in Washington state since the day its constitution was penned, and no right to do so against a customer, tenent or employee since its civil rights laws passed in 1949.

            The real issue is you think people have rights they have never had – there has never been a right to religious discrimination, the universal right to religious freedom and exercise protects each citizen from another’s discrimination.

          • Dan

            The First Amendment is being violated by this and needs to be upheld, not violated as it has been in regards to this lady and her business.

          • Oshtur

            No, the only person trying to violate the first amendment was baronelle in not acknowleging her customers first amendment right to not share her beliefs about marriage. If should couldn’t sell to people of all beliefs she wouldn’t have have offered to people of all beliefs, simple as that. But if she voluntarily choses to do so:

            “Those who enter into a profession as a matter of choice, necessarily face regulation as to their own conduct and their voluntarily imposed personal limitations cannot override the regulatory schemes which bind others in that activity.”

          • Dan

            Baronelle acknowledged the right not to share her beliefs by recommending other florists in the area. The state did not do so in kind however.

          • Oshtur

            No acknowleding that right would have been to sell to the customer she freely advertised to regardless of their beliefs.

          • Dan

            Then her rights are being violated. And now we have the government actually harming her by going after her personal money.

          • Oshtur

            No, she has no right to make illegal offers of sale – any offer she makes she is legally expected to honor. And she exposed her assets by instructing her LLC corporation to act illegally.

            Again, this is all about and because of Baronelle and her disregard for the law.

          • Dan

            And she did not offer the services, but rejected the offer of the customers to purchase a product.

            And when a law is unjust it must be opposed, as is the case here.

          • Oshtur

            And I do think that is the core of your side’s ire, you don’t know the law, the legal precedence or the standards used by the court. Advertising to a population is considered an invitation to do business and the start of the business transaction. Consumer Protection Laws would be largely useless if the business could only be regulated AFTER someone responded to their invitiation.

            And the law is completely just. Please go through the 60 page ruling and find the ‘unjust’ decision. All are backed up by previous rulings, usually multiple rulings. There truly is nothing new under the sun – these situations have come up before and were decided for the customer. Apparently you just didn’t realize that.

          • Dan

            why is it just? It forces a religious person to go against their religion. How is that just in any meaningful way? It is unjust by any reasonable reality.

          • Oshtur

            No it doesn’t, the religious person freely offered to go against their religion by advertising to a group that has a constitutional right to religious freedom – the general public. They won’t have offered to do something if they it was ‘against their religion’.

          • Dan

            Did the owner specifically advertise to LGBT people, saying they wanted to do gay weddings? If not, they did not advertise to that group.

          • Oshtur

            There are only weddings, there is no such thing as a ‘GS’ wedding any more than there is a ‘white’ Slurpee™

          • Dan

            Oshtur, you are correct that there is no such thing as a gay wedding, because that is an impossibility.

          • Oshtur

            yep, only weddings no matter the sexes involved. Either the business sells wedding floral arrangements or they don’t – pick one.

          • Mary Kilbride

            They did pick one. His Name is God.

          • Oshtur

            Yeah, if that was the issue she wouldn’t be selling wedding floral services as a public accommodation at all.

          • Mary Kilbride

            This was a “gay” wedding in the eyes of the Christian community, because God has expressed His ruling on this thousands of years ago.

          • MrKnowItAll

            Just to be clear, I don’t think the Christian communities views of this situation matter. I don’t know why this seems to be so difficult to grasp. Separation of Church and State. Remember?

          • Mary Kilbride

            The religious person has no constitutional rights today? This is scary that it seems a very huge amount of people in this “country” have this liberal and communistic mindset. We have GOT to start doing something!

          • MrKnowItAll

            Try to be more accepting of others. Judge less and quit telling people what they should do to make you more comfortable in life. That is what you should start doing.

          • Bitsey

            I agree. Gay people should stop bring lawsuits against Christians forcing them to do something they don’t want to do in order to make them feel better about their deviant lifestyles. See, I can do that too, MrKnowItAll.

          • MrKnowItAll

            You did it. But not very well. Epic fail Bitsey!

          • Geeky Grandma

            Notice however, these cases went before judges, and were not jury trials, because they would never pass that scrutiny.

          • Oshtur

            As do such administrative law.

          • dark477

            not every case warrants a jury. and a smart one would understand that this florist violated Washington law.

          • Mary Kilbride

            Because something has been made a law, does not make it just, moral, or right.

          • dark477

            that doesn’t matter so long as the law is considered constitutional and it is

          • Geeky Grandma

            They deserve a jury before their peers. Not a biased judge with an agenda.

          • dark477

            what agenda? the case was to determine if she discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation which she clearly did

          • Oshtur

            Arlene’s Flowers LLC demanded a summary judgement and got exactly what they asked for. Appeal will also be summary as they always are.

          • Mary Kilbride

            There is nothing just about this at all. It’s the government forcing somebody to comply with the laws THEY set up, in spite of what the people have said. The government is not always right. In fact, it is mostly wrong. It is made up of people who have much greed and little sense.

          • Mary Kilbride

            She made no such offer to violate her faith. I guess it is difficult to expect those who cannot see that obeying what the Bible commands is so far more important than this, it is laughable. She can’t stand in the middle. Jesus said so. It isn’t like she was causing them to not be able to get “married”…. she gave them names of three other vendors, but no. They had to destroy her. That was the fun of it all … for them. The love destroying others because they are so full of anger that destroying a person who has worked 40 years building a business means nothing to them. Does anything mean anything to them?

          • Oshtur

            Then she shouldn’t be selling the item and she could have ended the whole thing by agreeing to obey the law and stop selling the item.

            There is no way to make a public offer and religiously discriminate, it’s been that way since Ms Stutzman bought this business whether she realized it or not. She is the one who offered wedding floral services to the public, she is the one who chose to discriminate illegally, she is the one who instructed her business to illegally discriminate losing its liability protection of her assets . She is the one who rejected a generous offer by the AG to fix the problem where she could have just subsequently done what she has decided to do – stop selling wedding floral services.

            A long list of bad decisions but blaming the victims of the discrimination just doesn’t work. Ms Stutzman is living the life she has systematically chosen to live. I think she should just drop the suit, pay the fine and move on but unfortunately I don’t think she’ll choose that.

          • MrKnowItAll

            Mary, Will you leave this blog if i list 3 other sites where you can share your thoughts?

          • Mary Kilbride

            They are more than harming her. They are destroying her. This is our new government.

          • Gary

            Religious freedom rights protect people from government discrimination, not from the discrimination of other private citizens.

          • Mary Kilbride

            And the government overstepped their grounds and discriminated against the business owner….WAY over. This isn’t a fine, it is destruction.

          • Norman Dostal

            lies-ignorant lies

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s not crossing the line. The business owner is expected to abide by the laws governing business. She had a choice…follow the laws she agreed with when she opened the business, or get sued, as the case may be. It was entirely her choice.

          • Mary Kilbride

            And loosing her home, her business that she built for 40 years, and her life savings is what she always dreamed of. This was not the law until America underwent this gross change and made new “laws” that are not constitutional. Now that we have just about all liberal judges, we can expect to not receive our right to equal protection or equal rights. But, that’s ok. We DO know who stands on our sides in things such as this and our Partner and relationship with Christ Jesus FAR outweighs these injustices. She is in pain though…. that does make it difficult, but we will build in strength and we will stand together to support each other and we will survive until God makes it right and beyond.

          • lynn

            When she opened the business, that law most likely didn’t exist.

          • Mary Kilbride

            There was a time in our America, when all were protected under the law and a business had the right to refuse service to anyone. And, the punishment does not fit the so called crime, so you figure this is fair justice to a person to lose all they had and you think that is a fitting “penalty” and is equal to a gay person getting flowers for their “wedding”… Seriously? This is not justice, it is Christian hatred.

          • Oshtur

            Actually there hasn’t been a right to religiously discriminate in a public offer constitutionally since Washington became a state in 1889 and statutorily since the passing of the state civil rights act in 1949.

            And all monetary loss is on Ms Stutzman since she had an opportunity to avoid the whole thing by just obeying the law from then on.

            I know you would like to make her the victim here but she’s not.

          • ogail

            Oshtur. I have failed to extract sense from your reasoning. two things are being manifest here; either a child is talking or some who is thinking in a box from the simplicity of the faculty of mind which makes it all together silly and ridiculous. America is a symbol liberty and freedom why should the state regulate how one has to exercise his freedom of religion? why should that state target and impose senseless punishment on some one on a basis his/her belief.

            You, the state and any who think like you have defiantly got i wrong when it comes to defining discrimination in this case. the state and the GAYS want to FORCE this innocent christian against her will to SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY. refusing to take a part in Gay wedding is not discrimination. for example if a gay friend invites me to their wedding and i say no, i can’t take part in that, does this sound like discrimination? what choice do we have in decision making on things that we can go with or not. for justice to be brought to page (in regards to Anti-discrimination law) the prosecutor needs to ask whether she serves the Gay people (leave alone supporting their weeding as they supposed. this is out of question for any CHRISTIAN). according to this news, the disgusted fellow is a “faithful customer” meaning she has been serving him even before but now the problem comes when he wants her to support his “EVIL WEDDING” which is against her faith. In summary, logical conclusion would point out that this victimized women loves the sinners but never wants to get involved in sin.

            be your own judge; who is being discriminated against; any sensible person would definitely say that it’s the Lady because of her faith.

            When America was founded by our fathers It was a land of freedom of worship but now its a den of “devilism” and all forms of satanic influence. Christians are being fixed every now and then especially in regard to their ethical teaching on Homosexuality. the administration of Obama has made it worst. this explains why from the time he became the president the pride of being an American has been shattered from the hearts of reasonable and Godly Americans.
            The only good news is that our lord is with us no matter what we go through in life because of our faith. remember what happened to Sadrack Mesearch and abnego.

          • Oshtur

            I can see that since your note makes it clear that your sense of ‘sense’ has no basis in law or scriptural Christianity.

            As such my notes will probably contine to be incomprehensible to you, just ignore them is my suggestion.

          • ogail

            pointing at knowledge of the “law” and the “{scriptural Christianity” is just like jumping from a frying pan into fire. which perspective are you most interested in? I thought I should use logic for you get be clearly since i consider reasoning scripture with you is as unreasonable as singing the best melody to a deaf person in the dark. Any way you just sounded too loud some thing that attracted my attention and sympathy for the victim of barbarism. thus i could not ignore your post

          • ogail

            Oshtur, I am very surprise and shocked that you are talking about scriptural Christianity. What do know about the scripture? I would be very surprise further if the scripture supports impunity and sin. About the law, laws are made and bend down by men so for some one to whom virtue matters, the law of God prevails over all the laws established by men.

            If you think you are right sir then prove me otherwise using the scripture

          • Oshtur

            I seem to know more than you and God doesn’t require us to know anything about it to be saved.

            That you don’t know even the Christianity 202 basics is telling.

          • Norman Dostal

            come on, dumdum-no one was forced to go into a gay wedding!

          • Dan

            Norman, when one is told by the state to go and assist in arrangements of the ceremony, you have to attend. Or go against the state.

          • Mary Kilbride

            As a “part” of their punishment, they were told to not only sell the flowers, how to decorate the flowers, to deliver the flowers, to assist in the decorations and attend the wedding. That isn’t being “forced” to go to a “gay” wedding?

          • ogail

            are you being honest? or you think she has been net already. the Law in this case is just being used to target people who do not agree with homosexuality. the word hate needs to be “defined” since its the weapon that the gays are using against Christians

      • Norman Dostal

        you’re ignorant. We all pay taxes-gays, blacks, Jews-and tax money supports all businesses-so you MUST serve all

    • Gary

      Do you object to customers discriminating against businesses based on race, religion and sexual orientation?

      • Paul Hiett

        Customers can do that, btw.

        • Gary

          Yes. And legally.

          • Peter Leh

            yes legally

            you are getting the difference between business right and citizens rights. good job gary!

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s hope!!!

          • Peter Leh

            he knows… he is just wishing for the “good ole days”. 🙂

          • KenS

            The point Gary is trying to make, and I know you can see it you are just choosing to ignore it, is that if a customer can choose who he does business with and a business cannot then the law is unfair to businesses, cause it is one sided on whom can decide to do business with whom.

          • Oshtur

            But the business did decide, the customer is only walking in through the door because of the public offer of sale made by the business. That is why the courts must rule for the customer – they aren’t the initiator of the transaction, the business was. They offered the sale of wedding floral arrangements to the general public, each member of which has a constitutional right t not share anyone at the business’s beliefs about weddings or marriage and still do business with them.

            Two citizens with rights, court can’t pick between them so it then asks – who initiated this transaction? The business so the customer’s right to accept the offer always win. Always.

          • Dan

            Which is inherently wrong on so many levels. Actually it is pure evil.

          • Oshtur

            Its ‘inherently wrong’ and ‘pure evil’ for the court to do as the First Amendment demands and not put either the customer or the business owner’s religious beliefs above the other?

            Can you see why walking into a court with that attitude is probably going to end up with a ruling against you? if you don’t belief in the rule of constitutional law, why not just be an anarchist?

          • Dan

            actually the court just accepted the customers and rejected the others. So the court is not rightly protecting the First Amendment in regards to the owner.

          • Oshtur

            No, the business freely associated with the customers by advertising to them. Too late to apply a religious litmus test after the offer. Basic established case law.

          • KenS

            Thank you for your concise remark, that clarifies the situation for me, but it also brings us back to the conundrum that we are in about the 1st Amendment givings us religious liberty and this granting of a special status to a group of people doing that which goes against our religion. How can the government regulate a business to force them to go against their beliefs(religion) and still uphold said freedom of religion, free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. It is a no win scenario on both sides.

          • Oshtur

            Special status to who? Gays? This could have just as easily be filed as discriminate against the beliefs of the customer and been just as illegal – they just don’t because the trail with a sexual orientation charge stops at the state level. Make no mistake the customer’s beliefs include same-sex marriage just as much as the business owner’s do not.

            The free exercise clause protects all citizens, business owner and customer and the court can’t take sides for either – there can’t even be a law that allows it (THAT’S the first amendment). And so the court look s at who started the relationship and that is the business, the one that offered something for sale to the general public that they knew had a right to religious freedom and exercise. From that moment it was too late to apply a religious test the customer must pass to buy what was offered – their fundamental right to their own beliefs shields them from discrimination.

            If a business can’t sell something to a customer because of their religious beliefs they shouldn’t be offering it to the general public in the first place.

          • KenS

            So your answer to my conundrum is that the customer’s religious freedom wins over the business’s religious freedom. That is still going against the 1st Amendment and therefore not a solution.

          • Oshtur

            No its not over – its because the business and the customer’s cancel out and the case is decided on the fact the business made the offer of sale to the general public in the first place. If they don’t want to sell something don’t be running around offering it for sale.

          • Oshtur

            Special status to who? Gays? This could have just as easily be filed as discriminate against the beliefs of the customer and been just as illegal – they just don’t because the trail with a sexual orientation charge stops at the state level. Make no mistake the customer’s beliefs include same-sex marriage just as much as the business owner’s do not.

            The free exercise clause protects all citizens, business owner and customer and the court can’t take sides for either – there can’t even be a law that allows it (THAT’S the first amendment). And so the court look s at who started the relationship and that is the business, the one that offered something for sale to the general public that they knew had a right to religious freedom and exercise. From that moment it was too late to apply a religious test the customer must pass to buy what was offered – their fundamental right to their own beliefs shields them from discrimination.

            If a business can’t sell something to a customer because of their religious beliefs they shouldn’t be offering it to the general public in the first place.

          • Peter Leh

            ken, being a business person yourself then you already know you can do business with whoever you wish (being a business). providing a SERVICE to a customer fall under a different category of public accommodation.

            But like i said… you know this being in business. 🙂

          • KenS

            I never once said that I am in business, therefore, no I do not know, and as I said before, I was clarifying what Gary was trying to get across and what everyone else was twisting his argument around.

          • Peter Leh

            my apology. I confused you with another poster. please forgive me.

            Yes. Gary and i have had many conversations over this topic. I do know what he his trying to say. He just does not wish to learn. 🙂

          • Gary

            If everyone should have the same rights then the law is unfair.

          • Peter Leh

            hmm..

            “If everyone should have the same rights then the law is unfair.”
            hmmm….
            i dont understand the statement

          • Paul Hiett

            I think he means that only good, white Christian folks should be allowed to discriminate.

          • Peter Leh

            i was thinking ” i like gays just fine, as long as they know their place”.

            But surely…..

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            A business isn’t a person, Gary. The business owner has the same rights as everyone else. They are free to shop whereever they care to and they are free to choose to open or not open a business.

      • Malcolm Swall

        What is your point?

        • Gary

          The point is, you want to treat people unequally.

          • Peter Leh

            want? or have the right?

          • Malcolm Swall

            “The point is, you want to treat people unequally.”

            I made no such assertion. You are making things up.

          • Gary

            You want to prevent business owners from discriminating , but you would allow customers to discriminate.

          • Paul Hiett

            YES Gary, that’s how commerce works!!!! Customers get to pick and choose which business they want to engage in. Businesses do not.

          • Gary

            And that is unfair.

          • BarkingDawg

            Waaa waaa waaa. IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!!!

            Do you have any idea how childish you sound?

          • Gary

            You’re the one going “waaa waaa”.

          • Norman Dostal

            why? you do know that we all pay taxes right? and taxes pay for EVERY business (roads, sidewalks, power grids)

          • Gary

            Businesses pay taxes too.

          • HKP2000

            Kinda funny how those business owners are also personal tax payers and business taxpayers and pay federal, state and local fuel taxes to fund the roads and sidewalks. Oh yeah, they also pay their bills and all the associated fees and surcharges for their water and power too!!! Sort of a dumb argument there normy. Rather like the “you didn’t build that” quote so well received not long ago!
            I guess that means if someone has never actually paid any taxes there is no expectation of service?

          • HKP2000

            Golly normy, off to the Hot Tub Time Machine story with no logical or factual reply. Seems kinda weak for something you profess strong feelings about!

          • Malcolm Swall

            I made no comment on customers, at all. Why do you make things up?

            The anti-discrimination business regulation pertains to businesses. You are perfectly allowed to not buy things from whichever businesses you choose, for whatever reason you want. Same as me, same as the gays down the street.

            You are not making a coherent argument.

          • Peter Leh

            citizens are equal. Businesses are another animal with different rules.

            I am here for you gary. Ask any business question to a business owner. 🙂

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      Small businesses are a public accommodation under the law. As Christians we are obliged to obey the law even if we feel it is unjust.

      As a Christian business owner, I see nothing to be gained by jeopardizing the livelihood of my employees and my family. However, I need not profit from doing things I consider contrary to my faith. I once quoted a job for a gay pride event. I gave them the quote along with a note that said I was donating the entire amount of the sale in their name to our local crisis pregnancy center. They declined the quote.

      • Oshtur

        Local gay business did something similar for the Westburo baptist church when they were in two – did a fundraiser where people matched whatever the Westburo Baptists spent to go to a gay non-profit.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          I see no problem with that. If people want to impose their agenda on a business owner, the owner is free to use those funds to further a counter agenda. Westboro was obviously spoiling for a fight and they didn’t get one.

          In my case, what was Gay Pride going to accuse me of? Not accommodating them? I did offer to accommodate them. Donating money to a cause I support? Money is fungible so there is no way I could be sending “their” money to anyone. Using their name? They were certainly free to contact the CPC and clarify that the donation did not come from them.

          • Oshtur

            Well in my town they would have just placed the order anyway. The obligation is of rendering an advertised service not saying you want to join in the parade. 😉

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Absolutely. I’m not obligated to support anyone’s cause, just serve them. I think it might fall along the lines of being “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        I think that was a wonderful way of handling the situation, although I do question the legality of attaching their name to a charitable donation with their permission.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          Yes, that could be an issue, But as I said in a reply to Oshtur, they can certainly let the charity know that the contribution did not come from them. Or I could have made it more transparent and simply tell the CPC that I was donating the proceeds of that sale to them. The important thing is that as Christians we should be open to humble solutions in conflicts with the culture. I would rather win a heart than win a battle.

          Matthew 5:40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I applaud both your ingenuity and your attitude.

    • Geeky Grandma

      So, a customer can force you to act against your conscience, because it doesn’t violate theirs? How is that just? Go to someone else, this woman is not the only florist in town. No customer is ever forced to patronize a particular business. No customer has the right to force any business to accede to their every whim, either. Businesses say No to customers all the time and they don’t even have to give a reason.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “So, a customer can force you to act against your conscience”

        No, they can’t. Owning a business is a choice. Offering certain products is a choice. Therefore, no one can be “forced” to act against their conscience.

        “No customer has the right to force any business to accede to their every whim, either.”

        Correct.

        “Businesses say No to customers all the time and they don’t even have to give a reason.”

        Actually, if they refuse service to a person that they offer to others, and the customer complains, the business does indeed have to provide the reasons for the decision.

        • Geeky Grandma

          Says who? You can ask all you want, that doesn’t mean you will get an answer. They are not forced by law to answer the question, unless they are in court under oath.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Says who?”

            The law.

            “unless they are in court under oath.”

            That is what I was referring to.

    • Evangelina Vigilantee

      And your right to business ends where our religious freedoms begin, the right to follow our consciences. They are discriminating against HER and that is why it is harming her. It is not private religious expression, and it doesn’t end anywhere, it doesn’t infringe on others as no one is telling them what to do. But we do not leave our convictions at the doorstep of our workplaces, etc. And yes, it is a ticket to ‘break the law’ as we must obey God rather than man (Acts 5; 29). It may land us very well in jail, but it did so to the early Christians too. I am willing to make that sacrifice. Repent now while you still can. Jesus loves you!

      • Malcolm Swall

        You state what you imagine should be the law. I am explaining what the law actually is. You don’t get to harm others, even if your motivation is based in your religion. IF you cannot both follow the law AND your religion, you need to find a new way to make a living.

        • Evangelina Vigilantee

          We obey the law of God above the law of man, regardless of the outcome. Either way, legal or not, we are the harmed, not the gays. YOU don’t get to harm others, even if your motivation is based on law or sexual orientation. So YOU are wrong. And I do know about your goals regarding the ‘gay manifesto,’ no worries, my God provides for me.

          • Malcolm Swall

            I am not a Christian.

            I give your advice about God and the bible, exactly the same regard that you would give someone quoting Allah and the Quran to you.

            I.e., Not at all.

        • Evangelina Vigilantee

          We are the victims, the gay agenda is the perpetrator.

    • Mary Kilbride

      I think you are looking at this backwards. The harm done, which you fail to see, is towards this woman who is losing her business, her home and her bank account. Meanwhile, I assume these two men (whom she considered friends and loved them both are now married and probably very happy to be destroying this woman. Good going guys. It isn’t that you want flowers for your “marriage’, it’s that you want to destroy a Christian. She sure was wrong about you, wasn’t she? She still says you are a “great guy”…. really? So, you believe that we have to stand apart from our faith, from our Savior, to satisfy you and others? You believe that is what this country is about? Seriously? So all y’all have rights, but Christians have none. My heart is breaking for this lady…absolutely crushed. But, I know that in the end, God is going to make this right. Her greatest reward is in Heaven where she will be rewarded for her steadfastness in her faith and this world will be a ball of dust that means nothing and all this will go poof. God bless you and keep you safe. Many of us love you and respect you and hurt with you. Is there a place where we can donate to help you with money issues? I don’t have much, but I would gladly and enthusiastically give what I can to help. May the Good Lord bless and keep you.

      • Malcolm Swall

        If you cant do the time, dont do the crime. Every business licence comes with the requirement to behave lawfully.

    • Lisa

      I have a right to express my religious beliefs just as she does..It was not harming anyone,just their pride..They were her friend in which they knew she was a Christian with high moral values. They are the ones that are hurting her financially and emotionally,so they should be the ones to be held accountable. She is held accountable to a higher authority than our own government.

      • Malcolm Swall

        Yet she is the one found guilty of violating the law.

        If you have a business licence, it is contingent on behaving legally.

        Your religion is not a “get out of jail” card to violate the law, and the requirements of your business licence.

        Discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation harms the individuals and it harms the community.

        If you cannot both behave legally, and in accord with your religion, you need to find a new line of business.

      • Malcolm Swall

        You are harming those that you illegally discriminate against. That’s why it is illegal, because your community recognizes that there IS a harm.

        The fact that you do not see it as a harm demonstrates your lack of empathy for fellow citizens.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Equal rights and justice for all. Even for those of differing religious views.

    • Paul Hiett

      Cue Gary’s hateful remarks in 3…2…1…

    • Gary

      Then why discriminate against business owners?

      • Peter Leh

        why did the business owner not set up her business properly?

      • Malcolm Swall

        Who is “discriminating” against business owners.

        You are like Peewee Herman – “I’m not discriminating, You are.” “I know you are, but what am I.” “you are the intolerant one, for not tolerating the intolerance.” Neener neener neener.

        • Paul Hiett

          You are stepping all over his God given rights to hate others!!!!

        • Gary

          Customers.

          • Malcolm Swall

            What do you mean “Customers”? What is your point?

          • Gary

            Never mind. YOu won’t get it.

          • Malcolm Swall

            No one is going to “get it”, if you don’t write in complete sentences.

          • Peter Leh

            yes gary customer can discriminate against businesses. I can choose to never eat a Mcdonald’s but McDonalds can never choose to withhold service based on protected status.

  • SFBruce

    There’s nothing complicated about any of these similar cases: in states that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, owners of public accommodations will face consequences for breaking that law. And if doesn’t matter how “politely” potential LGBT customers are turned away. Her attorneys should have advised her that she had virtually no chance of prevailing, and that accepting the AG’s offer to recant was the best option for her business.

    • Peter Leh

      and in the end the ADF did not lose any money….

      • SFBruce

        Not only did the ADF not lose money, they will use this case to raise money. I hope Ms. Stutzman understood her best interests may not have been uppermost in their minds.

        • Peter Leh

          yep

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      But that advice would have garnered absolutely ZERO publicity for the ADF and would have robbed them of numerous opportunities to express righteous indignation and present false persecution complexes.

  • Gary

    The solution seems to be forced on Christians. Move to a state that allows discrimination. Offer products or services that are not easy targets. Find ways to discriminate that are not easily provable.

    • Peter Leh

      and that is why you are not a business man gary

    • SFBruce

      Alternatively, a business owner could just comply with the law, and serve anyone who walks in with the ability to pay.

      • Gary

        They could. But it would violate the religious beliefs of many. Meanwhile, the customer can legally discriminate as they will.

        • Peter Leh

          “They could. But it would violate the religious beliefs of many.”

          not if the business is set up properly.

        • Paul Hiett

          The funny thing is, religion is nothing more than an opinion. There’s nothing factual about any of it, nothing more than “belief”.

          • Gary

            Christians disagree with you. Christianity is rooted in history.

      • BarkingDawg

        That’s usually a good buisness plan.

    • BarkingDawg

      Wow. If I wasn’t familiar with you, Gary, I would think that you were engaged in hyperbolic satire in that post.

      But I know that you are being serious and that you are calling for hatred and discrimination.

      I also know that the irony of the situation is totally lost on you. You are completely blind to how totally un-Christian your post is.

      • Peter Leh

        totally

        • BarkingDawg

          Ok. Fixed it. 😉

      • Gary

        Said the infidel..

        • Paul Hiett

          Sounds like something a member of ISIS would say.

          • HKP2000

            As they shoved your gay butt off the roof!

    • Badkey

      This from a man who wishes to see gay citizens executed. Who would listen to you?

      • Gary

        Are you pax2u in drag?

        • Badkey

          No, sweetie… I’m the same Badkey that watched you get banned from CP.

          • Gary

            THey never told me I was banned.

          • Badkey

            They don’t tell you. They just ban you.

          • Peter Leh

            I KNEW I KNEW GARY FROM SOMEWHERE!

    • Opus35

      You are advocating for discrimination? That makes you clear-cut bigot.

      • Gary

        And so are you.

        • Opus35

          Why am I a bigot……..oh I know, because after you advocated discrimination, I called you a bigot.

          • Gary

            You are intolerant of Christians.

          • Opus35

            No I am not.

          • Gary

            You clearly are.

          • Opus35

            Why do you say that? What did I say that makes you think that?

          • Paul Hiett

            We’re only intolerant of people who wish to discriminate against others for gender, sexual orientation, race, and religious beliefs.

          • Gary

            That is a lie.

          • Paul Hiett

            I would then ask you to provide proof of that being a lie. Find a quote I have made to support your claim.

          • Gary

            You are an advocate for homosexuals, which requires you to be bigoted against Christians.

      • BarkingDawg

        He gets to hate whoever he wants because God told him how special he is

    • Badkey

      Gary,

      How has gay marriage changed marriage between a man in woman in North Caolina?

      • Paul Hiett

        I’d use Massachusetts as the example, as it was the first one to do so.

        • Badkey

          Gary lives in NC.

          • Paul Hiett

            Poor, poor Gary…all of that hate built up and nowhere to let it go…

          • Badkey

            He can always move to Russia. I’ll help him pack and pay for his trip.

  • Eric N Ericka Oberhausen

    Anyone who actually read the history books and knew the founding fathers would know America was a Christian nation dedicated to GOD at Ground Zero, and given a warning from George Washington that if America forgot GOD, that GOD would remove His Hand away from America and she would lose her blessings and invite only Judgment. We have “heresy hunters” by homosexuals who are trying to hurt Christians and Christian businesses in order to get us to be silent. It won’t work. The true Christians are prepared to die for Jesus because we do not love our lives unto the death. So go ahead…seek us out. Attack us. Call us “crusaders, KKK, hateful, mongerers,” etc. We know whom it is we belong to and where we are going, and you guys cannot follow us where we are going when we die.

    • Peter Leh

      the SBC prohibiting equal protected since 1845….

    • Paul Hiett

      I am assuming you haven’t read the Treaty of Tripoli?

    • Badkey

      And th founders allows slavery, banned women from voting, and made a whole host of other mistakes we’ve fixed.

    • Norman Dostal

      wow-youre BOTH dumb

      • djshawman

        What a well thought-out comeback. Did you think of this all by yourself or did your big brother help you? Come one…fess up…no one could have thought of that zinger all by themselves.

  • Norman Dostal

    We have given these bigots ample time to stop breaking the law and treat all equally. This old coot needed to be punished. And the headlined lies-the most she faces is a $2000 fine.

    • Gary

      How tolerant of you.

      • Paul Hiett

        Nothing wrong with a bigot getting fined for breaking the law.

        • Gary

          If you were not an advocate for perverts you would not consider her a bigot. You are immoral

          • Paul Hiett

            Neither you, nor your Bible, define morality. Poor attempt, Gary.

          • Gary

            God defines morality. And you have broken God’s moral laws. You are guilty. The Judge will soon pass sentence.

          • Badkey

            Your God defines morality for you. Those that disagree have no obligation to follow such obligations.

          • Gary

            God disagrees with you. You can rebel, but you cannot escape.

          • Badkey

            Your God does not matter in civil law.

          • Gary

            I am talking about God’s law. You have broken that law, and encouraged others to do the same. You will answer to God for what you have done.

          • Paul Hiett

            If so, that’s between us and God, and not you. God doesn’t need you passing judgement, unless you think you’re better than him?

            Matthew 7:1, Gary, Matthew 7:1.

          • Gary

            God has already judged you. All that is left now is your punishment.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s merely your opinion, and nothing more.

          • Gary

            We will see.

          • Paul Hiett

            2000 years and counting…yeah, I’m not exactly worried.

          • Gary

            I was hoping you would say something like that. Don’t ever change.

          • Badkey

            Spooooooky mythology!

          • Badkey

            You, a man who calls for deat, speaks for your “loving” deity? BWA HA HA HA HAAAAA,

          • Gary

            I have never told you that God loves you.

          • Badkey

            You don’t speak for any sky monster.

          • Paul Hiett

            The only reason you say that is because of your parents. You were indoctrinated as a Christian, nothing more. If you were born in Iraq, you’d be a Muslim.

            In short, you were made, and not a true believer.

          • Gary

            Even if I was a muslim, it would change nothing for you. The Bible would still be true, even if I didn’t believe it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Except that you wouldn’t believe that. You’d believe in the Koran, and condemn Christians.

          • Gary

            The truth does not depend on my believing it. It is true anyway.

          • Paul Hiett

            You really don’t understand how life works, do you? If you were a Muslim, you’d be just as convicted in your beliefs as you are a Christian. I don’t expect you to understand.

    • HKP2000

      Since when is a privately owned business of any type required (Constitutionally) to transact business at any time with any and every body. LAWS are not allowed to be discriminatory, free people are! This is not about public accommodation, a public building or service!!! Nowhere is the right of a free person to pursue their own religious freedom of expression, life, liberty and happiness to be curtailed; as long as no harm is done to another’s person or property.

  • Bruce Morrow

    This is a very sad time in our nation when Government is forcing Christians to violate their religious convictions. The message is either CONFORM or we (the government) will come after YOU! Is this the country our Founding Fathers wanted???? I trow not!

    • Paul Hiett

      Ah yes, the God given right to hate and discriminate against whomever you want. The Christian Creed indeed…

      • Gary

        You have the same right.

        • Paul Hiett

          Yeah, but I choose not to hate. Odd, that I don’t need a book to tell me that hating someone is wrong, don’t you think?

          • Gary

            You do hate Christians. And God.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ok Gary, if you say so. Because, you know, you clearly know how people feel, and what they’re thinking. It’s almost as if you know everything. Wow, you’re actually claiming to have god-like abilities! Isn’t that a sin, Gary, comparing yourself to god?

          • Gary

            Anyone who reads what you write can plainly see your hatred for God and for Christians.

          • djshawman

            As you clearly do as well. You are guilty of claiming to know what white Christians think. Hypocrite much?

    • Gary

      It isn’t the country I want either.

    • Badkey

      The founders wanted slaves and no women voting.

      • Paul Hiett

        As is their God given right, according to the Bible. Why do you want to infringe on what God has given them?

        • djshawman

          You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about…but you have some serious issues against Christians…white ones in particular. I hope you’re seeking therapy for your hatred and anger.

      • HKP2000

        No you incipient JACKW*d, they struggled mightily with how to address the issues in a manner that would be acceptable at that time and in that place. You should not speak when you apparently have NO knowledge on the subject and are just seeking some “cool dude…” comments from other air headed sycophants. Trying to denigrate our founders would require a lot more brain power than you can muster.

  • Paul Hiett

    So, Christians…apart from Gary, because we know how he feels…is this the type of discrimination you also support?

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/19/christian-pediatrician-refuses-to-treat-baby-girl-because-her-parents-are-lesbians/

  • franco

    I must commend christians here for their tolerance. I don’t think that pro-gay sites would be so obliging. Lord Christ Jesus is a loving God, however he is also a righteous God. And a God who is an all consuming fire. He is ultimately the judge. I know some will say well why did he “allow” multiple wives in the past, or wipe out entire cultures, or allow slavery, etc.. Because HE is sovereign, and has made us sovereign also. In other words He has told us what is right and what is wrong, and in His time will deal with it according to HIS mandate and not ours. Indeed He is long suffering. But just as all laws of nature, and physics, there are universal moral laws set in motion by the Creator. These laws once broken have there resultant consequence in due time..His time. Just because one does not agree with these laws does it make it less truthful. For instance a law of physics says if i throw a ball in the air, it will come down, regardless of how hard I throw it. If 2+2=4 and I believe it is 5, this mathematical law cannot be challenged, just because I want it so. Though California might have something to say about that. Or just as the leaves from a tree wither or bloom according the season..hence laws of nature. No cajoling or complaining are going to change these things. I believe in like fashion spiritual laws of the Creator Father apply to our lives. Where does one draw the line in a gay lifestyle? New Jersey has already ordained incestuous relations as legal. Once we pass the spiritual law of what God considers right or wrong, how can we know what is? I believe we can’t, and there will be no boundaries. Those this slippery slope seems to have no limits and no laws. In a country that legalizes the murder of the unborn, the approval of fornication, adultery, multiple partners, divorce, vulgarity, lieing, stealing,etc. is it any wonder that we have come to this point. Look at what we consider entertainment today, and most of our parents would slap us across the face if they had any decency for watching it. And we wonder why USA has the largest number of incarcerated people in the planet. If you study history, all alleged great nations came to this point of hedonism before they self-imploded. Sodom and Gomorrah met the same fate. There is indeed nothing new under the sun. Man will meet the same fate..except those that are HIS. Repent of your sins and turn to a loving Savior while you still can. For today is the day of salvation.

    • Paul Hiett

      I’m guessing you haven’t exactly read through the tolerant Christian responses, have you?

      • franco

        Well I can empathize with those christians that are not so also. Why? Because we as the Savior hate sin..our own sin included. Do you think john the baptist would be so obliging? Without right and wrong, you can not have love. Its like dealing with a delinquent child. If they are not shown right from wrong and the consequences for disobedience, he will remain a brat. What is right and what is wrong? And according to what authority? Who is the ultimate authority? Crimes against humanity tell us a different story don’t they. Man is lost…period. The point of this article is this person’s belief in a higher authority that they are accountable to required him distancing himself from them. His God-given conscious felt this was an affront to a God he loves. It is like me metaphorically, slapping your father. Would you tolerate it? yes this person was more than obliging..in a Christ-like way. So who then is the intolerant? The gays who say we can not believe what we believe, because it doesn’t line up with your thinking. Or the christians who say ..you can believe what you want..just please allow me to believe what I want… We have arrived at a point in history once again,and are truly fulfilling scripture…good is being called evil, and evil is being called good. Only Christ can fill that longing in your heart..that emptiness that permeates the soul. His prayer is that none should perish and all come to the knowledge of the truth.. Amen.

        • Paul Hiett

          No one….not one single person…is suggesting that you can not believe what you want to believe. I don’t think the majority of you understand this.

          The line in the sand is drawn when your beliefs spill over into the lives of others. Discrimination is not tolerated in America. If someone doesn’t like that, they are free to leave. The doors are wide open for anyone who hates others to simply pick up and leave.

          If not, then you accept that this country is not, and never has been, a “Christian” nation. That was spelled out specifically in the Treaty of Tripoli, although I doubt anyone here knows what I’m talking about.

          This country exists in part due to a freedom of religion desired by its founders. The idea that we can all worship as we see fit, to believe or not to believe…but the cost of that equality is accepting that not everyone subscribes to the same belief system, and your rights end where mine begin.

          In short, you are free to believe and say whatever you want…and I fully support that. But, I will stand up and speak up when you attempt to force your beliefs on myself and others who do not share your religious viewpoints. The separation of church and state is never more apparent than it is today, and is exactly why this country should and will never be ruled by a singular religious belief system.

          • Gary

            The country will soon be ruled by a singular religious belief system. And it will have a King.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, no doubt…because obviously we’re in the end times. And since no one else in history has ever claimed to be in end times (every decade for the last 2000 years), I’m sure this is it!

    • Opus35

      Here why don’t you go and see how you would be treated. Come back tell us what topic you were commenting on, and how it went. You know where to find me.

      https://disqus.com/home/forums/lgbtqnation/

  • Faith Ukwuomah

    I really feel sorry for the Christian florist to be honest. And, as a fellow Christian, I fully support her to declining the LGBT wedding. And honestly, if I were her, and found myself in that position, I would most definitely do the same thing she did: saying no to the gay “wedding”.

    • Paul Hiett

      What if that baker was a doctor, and refused to treat an infant because the parents were gay?

      • Frank

        Apples and oranges. Also, a follower of Jesus wouldn’t do your scenario.

        • Paul Hiett
          • Frank

            The statement is pretty clear.

          • Paul Hiett

            Uh, did you read the article? A “follower of Jesus” just did that.

          • djshawman

            They weren’t really a follower of Jesus is the point Paul

          • Frank

            Exactly

          • Lisa

            Yes they are followers of Jesus! We are commanded by God himself to abide by his laws. The Christian florist would have broken one of God’s laws if she agreed to do the flower arrangement for the gay couple..In essence, she would have betrayed God,because God doesn’t approve on this types of marriages. God created man and woman to be married. It is unacceptable and i agree with what she did.

          • Oshtur

            If she can’t sell wedding floral arrangements to the general public according to the law why was she selling them to the general public?

            She doesn’t sell them anymore and the AG has offered to settle the entire case for just $2001.00

            So now we will see just how puffed up Baronelle is.

          • Bingo

            Surely you can see from the video that she is a most humble woman, and who loves the man she denied.

          • Oshtur

            Oh pleasel, the most evil person’s I’ve met have appeared the most pious. If she really loved him she would have sold to them. If she was really a follower of Christ she just wouldn’t offer the things she couldn’t sell without religious discrimination as a public accommodation but sell them as a private club.

            She is just looking for her 15 minutes in the sun, prideful, arrogant and as anti-christian as they come. You surely didn’t think the followers of the Anti-Christ would call themselves anything other than Christian did you?

          • Bingo

            Oh please. Piosity is no measure of one’s spiritual health. she loved him, but could not violate what God would want her to do regarding his request. I love her excellent stand.

            This woman is not one looking for publicity. You are dead wrong, and have a very poor sense of people, because it is hindered by bigotry and intolerance.

          • Oshtur

            “Poisity” ? You think that exhibiting the fruits of being filled with the Spirit is ‘poisity”?

            Get thee behind me.

          • Bingo

            You brought up the word. Jesus wasn’t very favourable to those who were “pious”. Knowing Him doesn’t lend to being pious or religious. As a Spirit-filled believer, I am not religious—nor am I evil.

          • Oshtur

            You brought up the word, typical.
            Get thee behind me.

          • Bingo

            It’s important to know what one is talking about. You don’t.

          • Oshtur

            I have seen no indication of the Spirit or its fruits in you or your words, just like the self-righteous woman who is trying to undermine this nation today.

            Get thee behind me.

          • Bingo

            That’s because you don;t know what they are.

            I am in front of you.

          • Oshtur

            Ah, I see helpful Siri. You just confirmed what I said she isn’t behaving as a Christian would, she has been given the opportunity to run her business legally and in compliance with her conscience and refused it revealing this isn’t about religious conscience at all.

          • Bingo

            She behaved as any strong Christian would. We don’t have to allow evil people to overrun us, and that includes evil laws.

          • Oshtur

            No a Christian would have sold the offered service or not have offered it at all.

          • Bingo

            It all depends on the strength of the Christian’s faith. Some have more courage and conviction than others. This lady has my respect for having both conviction and courage.

          • Oshtur

            Well if she has your respect that’s not an endorsement. But you are right she was convicted and the difference between self-righteousness and courage is nuanced – I think ugly pride and haughtiness better fit the bill.

          • Bingo

            She was not operating in pride and haughtiness. It is apparent.

          • Oshtur

            She has refused the opportunity to operate according to her religious conscience AND legally twice.

            Pride and haughtiness is what motivates her.

          • Bingo

            Not really. There is no shred of evidence of that in her. Now that she is being ruined by the government and the rash actions of the AG, acting on his own intolerance, where is your compassion?

          • Oshtur

            She isn’t being ruined, could have run her business according to her conscience legally by accepting the first offer, same with paying a $2,001 fine after her conviction. That was the mercy and compassion.

            Every risk she is taking is by her own prideful choice. If someone keeps pointing their gun at their foot the person responsible for shooting it is their own eventually. She has a right to shoot herself in the foot if she is hell driven to do so.

          • Bingo

            She will now suffer some ruin in her livelihood due to the crushing wheels of a godless machine. she is not prideful, but humble, serving God first over self.

            Your world view opposes the view that the people of God hold.

          • Oshtur

            Laughable hyperbole. Don’t like the USA move or change it but obey the law until you do.

          • Bingo

            Good thing I’m not American, although as a Canadian we Christians face the same opposition, but people are a lot less oppressive and litigious, here.

          • Oshtur

            Then your lack of understanding of US law is understandable.

          • Bingo

            My understanding relies in how it is portrayed. Other than that, we are talking morality, here, and your laws (and ours) don’t consider that value.

          • Oshtur

            Sure they do, our common morality is that all, each and every citizen, has their own right to religious freedom and exercise. No moral person would make an offer to the public and not acknowledge this right and would never offer something they couldn’t sell to a customer while respecting that right.

          • Bingo

            No immoral person can inflict their immorality on us and make us violate what God would have us do. This “in your face” method of asserting oneself is not going to work.

          • Oshtur

            Absolutely, a truly righteous person would never have put themselves in this situation by offering the public something they couldn’t sell to people of all faiths to begin with.

          • Bingo

            She established her business long before the homosexual agenda bulldozed its way into the sanctity of marriage!!! She WAS FORCED into this situation by perverse people—a minority who has no right to what they’ve seized for themselves.

          • Oshtur

            So in other words you have to rational defense other than she doesn’t want to and you think she shouldn’t have to if she doesn’t want to?

            Sorry these are the laws of the land rooted in the basic principles of our nation and state. There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offering, each customer’s own right to free exercise protects them from such licentiousness.

          • Bingo

            We need to stand up for what’s right! God bless this lady!

          • Oshtur

            And that’s what the Attorney General did since ‘what’s right’ is to not illegally discriminate.

          • Bingo

            Nah, he’s a bigoted twit who started the whole thing—not her customer.

          • MisterPine

            “This lady’ is a bigot. She is not above the law.

          • Bingo

            Her moral and spiritual convictions are above the law. She’s no bigot. she is righteous. The AG and the state are the bigots.

          • Bingo

            She should continue to maintain her right to abide by her convictions. There are other florists who could take customers who desire product or services for unholy reasons.

            If establishments can dictate that people must wear shoes and shirts, then they can dictate that they not request services to homosexual weddings.

          • Oshtur

            If she wanted to abide by her convictions she just wouldn’t invite the public to buy wedding floral services. Or let someone else do the weddings she didn’t want to.

            There were other florists right there at Arlene’s that would have happily filled the order.

          • Bingo

            Have you not been paying attention? She did recommend other florists, which is a very honest thing to do.

          • Oshtur

            No the business has the obligation, other employees at Arlene’s could do it.

          • Bingo

            Not when her business is submitting to something she knows God is against.

          • Oshtur

            No one forced her to offer wedding floral services, she put that on the altar herself. She could have accepted the AG’s generous offer, just stopped offering things she refuses to sell to people regardless of their beliefs and that should be the best of all worlds.

            But she wants to be able to do anything she wants, including religiously discriminate because of her religious conscience. Hypocrite.

          • MisterPine

            On behalf of all Canadians I apologize for Bingo’s hateful caricature of a Christian. Most Canadians don’t believe there is a homosexual agenda and most Canadians take no issue with homosexual marriage.

          • Bingo

            It’s “piosity”.

          • ogail

            Wow! what a hater of Christianity and the truth. your hatred is mixed with ignorance of Christian values. supporting some one to commit sin is not loving that parson, for example if a gave you my car to facilitate your trip to rob a bank, no matter how happy you are, i would have shown a great hatred for you by supporting you to commit sin. this is how sin is viewed in christian values. One problem with you Gays is that you want to condone other forms of sin pretending its not a sin, but let it be clear to you; no one, no nation, no constitution, no country, no government, etc. can change or modify the law of God. like it or not time will prove you wrong.

          • Oshtur

            The law of God is to love God and to love each other as we love ourself, all law flows from that.

            What’s sad is you seem to have no concept of what it is to be Christian. May God forgive you for that.

          • ogail

            Perfect bro, Any one who hates a brother (any one) is not a Christian. I strongly agree with you that we have to love others as we love our selves which by the grace of i am doing on a daily basis.

          • Sparedoor

            And your evidence?

      • Lisa

        This delicate subject is being taken out of context. We are taking about a Christian florist who simply refused to do a same-sex couple’s flower arrangement. I seriously doubt that any doctor who refused to treat any infant based on their parents’ sexual orientation..

      • lynn

        Gay folks don’t have baby’s.

        • Sparedoor

          Heh heh

        • Bingo

          LOLOL! Good one!

        • JohnVHedtke

          My daughter and her wife, and their daughter, would be really surprised to hear that. Gay folks do have babies: they adopt them, they bring them to the marriage from previous relationships, they even have IVF.

          • ogail

            They adapt and spoil them! how sad to be adopted by Gays

      • lynn

        On the other hand, what is the florist or baker was a muslim extremist? Think the law would have applied? I seriously doubt it.

      • Patty Walter Briseno

        Hmmm, that depends. Is the infant gay or straight?

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Do you feel sorry for her because, like all other business owners, she is being held accountable for breaking the law? Or is it that you feel sorry for her because, like all other business owners, she is not able to use her religious beliefs as a justification for breaking the law?

      • Lisa

        I agree with Faith Ukwuomah,because the government is attempting to conform us in their image..We were created in the image of God himself and as such we are to be like unto him.. The Christian florist did the right thing,,It is the gay couple who blew things out of propostion by filing suit against their own friend who politely refused to do their flower arrangement. The people who should be held accountable is the gay couple who could have just take the referrel she gave them and go to another florist.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “because the government is attempting to conform us in their “image”

          What image?

          “We were created in the image of God himself and as such we are to be like unto him”

          That is what you have chosen to believe, which is your right, but that does not make it true.

          “It is the gay couple who blew things out of propostion by filing suit against their own friend who politely refused to do their flower arrangement.”

          So you believe it is wrong to hold people accountable to the law if they are polite in the way they break it? So if someone is robbing you and they say “Please give me your wallet” rather than just “Hand over your wallet”, their behavior shouldn’t be punished, because they broke the law politely?

          “The people who should be held accountable is the gay couple”

          Accountable for what? Holding the business owner accountable to the law?

          • Sparedoor

            Thank God that there is a higher court before which we must all stand. Let’s see where Robert, Curt, the Judge and all the other liberal and woolly thinking apologists stand then.

          • Oshtur

            We’ll all be just fine, now the people who were prideful, spiteful, judgemental and pigheaded – those might have more of an issue.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Perhaps. if so, I think the outcome is going to quite different than you envision.

      • lynn

        I don’t want anything to do with gay activities, or any other activity that would cause me to loose some of my fellowship with the Lord,. I have a few friends that are gay. I in no way hate them, and we get along fine, but I will not participate in any of their gay activities. They all know that I don’t agree with their life style when it comes to gayness. There is no way I would even send them a congratulations card much less flowers for their un-godly wedding. You can call me a homophobe, and you will at least be partially right. I’m an old man and set in my ways. I love my Lord enough not to take Him with me where I think He would not have me to go. Just my two cents worth.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “I don’t want anything to do with gay activities”

          That is certainly your choice, Lynn.

          “or any other activity that would cause me to loose some of my fellowship with the Lord,”

          It’s unfortunate that your faith is so weak. It’s said that Jesus spent much of his time with sinners, and still maintained his faith.

          “They all know that I don’t agree with their life style when it comes to gayness.”

          What “lifestyle” are you talking about? That they go to work, clean house, shop for groceries, make dinner, watch TV, go to the movies, put up Christmas decorations?

          “You can call me a homophobe”

          Based upon your post, I don’t think that “homophobe” would be appropriate. You do not seem to have an irrational fear of gay people.

          “I love my Lord enough not to take Him with me where I think He would not have me to go.”

          IMO, you don’t decide where you are going to take God. God is with you always.

          “Just my two cents worth.”

          One of the truly great things about our nation – we are allowed to put in our “two cents worth”.

          • ogail

            your reasoning is quite misleading; “Jesus pent time with sinners” yes he did but not condoning their sin he spend time pulling them out of the sin e.g Mary Magdalene. But here are people who do not want to receive the light of the word of God. what can we do?

            How do you account for II Cor 6:16-18. 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
            17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
            18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

            if a sinner accepts the grace of God then s/he becomes the child of God but otherwise; there is no fellowship between light and darkness.

            the lifestyle of the Gays referred to here is the constant engagement sin of homosexuality.

  • http://www.locomotivebreath1901.blogspot.com/ locomotivebreath1901

    The gaystapo strikes again.

    • Paul Hiett

      That’s cute. Gay marriage does nothing negative to anyone, but people like you will stop at nothing to prevent it. You’ve even got people on here like Gary that admit that gay people should be executed just for being gay.

      Who’s the intolerant ones?

      • Gary

        Correction. I said homos-xual s-x should be a capital crime.

        • Paul Hiett

          Punishable by death, Gary. Those are your exact words. You want to kill gays just like they do in Iran.

          There’s something fundamentally wrong with you.

          • Gary

            You should have said there is something wrong with God since it was God who came up with the idea of capital punishment for homosex.

          • Badkey

            Monster God says it is so, so it must be so. How quaint.

            Yes… You’re gonna say something about damned, he’ll, all that jazz. I know.

          • Gary

            Thanks. Predictable and wanted response from you.

      • franco

        Just because one calls them self a christian doesn’t make them one..anymore then me claiming to be president. You will know them by their fruit, and love one for another Christ Jesus will be the final judge..and if you do not line up with HIS law. The consequences are yes, permanent separation from God, in Hell. But that is His job not ours. Obviously if Gary is saying this he is not a christian, and maybe a plant trying to insight hatred…of christians. pysc-opt games.

      • HKP2000

        According to the CDC homosexuals have the highest incidence of STD’s of any identified group in the world. Among the highest incidence of severe depression, Among the highest incidents of suicide. Among the highest incidents of pedophilia and better than average sock collections. Nah ! Nothing negative to anyone…I read where a woman in Australia was suing to marry her dog. They have been happy together for years, and she really loves him and she says he really loves her. Would you deny them a marriage license? Oh! and the happy brother and sister from FL that are relocating to NJ so they can get married! I’m sure there’s some guys in or around Utah that are jonesing for a few dozen more wives. We should make sure that’s OK too, because it’s no ones business who loves who, don’t ya know.
        Remember the lesson from above on incrementalism???

      • http://www.locomotivebreath1901.blogspot.com/ locomotivebreath1901

        That’s a profoundly ignorant statement as legal homosexual ‘marriage’ has obviously done something to this woman who does not wish to condone, facilitate or otherwise participate in another’s perverse and immoral behavior in violation of her heartfelt religious beliefs.

        And last I look, ‘religious liberty’ is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Sodomy is not. Try again.

  • HKP2000

    I’m really tired of the homosexual hate speech and vindictive pursuit of people who choose to disagree with a minority viewpoint. Live and let live.
    There is NO excuse for ruining an elderly woman’s entire life because you want to inspire fear of retribution in others. That path over history hasn’t worked out to your benefit! “Aloha snackbar” as your shoved off the ledge…

    • Paul Hiett

      Do you understand what a precedent is?

      • HKP2000

        Yes. It is a reliance on another judges opinion rather than a ruling based on the facts and the Constitutional validity of the law’s application.

        • Paul Hiett

          No, HKP…it means that if one kind of intolerance is allowed, it then clears the way for other intolerance.

          First, it was a bakery refusing to bake a cake. Next it was a doctor refusing to treat a baby because the parents were gay.

          Where does it? Will you be ok if someone you loved died because the doctor was Muslim and refused to treat a Christian? After all, “religious freedom”.

          • HKP2000

            1) You can not equate a privately owned business with a corporation. A business owned and operated by an individual does not enjoy the protections and dispersed ownership of a corporation. Consequently, they aren’t obligated to the same inclusiveness of service.
            2) A doctor swears to do no harm and is therefore obligated to treat the sick without regard for class, caste, color or religious belief.
            3) I prefer my medical treatments be sterile not Halal.
            4) Ruining that woman is shameful, evil and totally unjustified by any measure of decency.

          • Paul Hiett

            So, you’re telling me that the oath doctors take is on a higher scale than God’s word?

            Oh please PLEASE tell me you just said that!!!!

          • HKP2000

            Nice try. No shift in my response and no logical reply to my statements.
            I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
            I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
            I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
            I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
            I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
            I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
            I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
            I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
            If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…sorry bud, but you just put a man’s law over God’s law. Period. According to you and your fellow Christians, nothing comes above God’s law.

            Now, if you insist that men follow this law, then why the hypocrisy in allowing this baker to break man’s law?

            Dance!!

          • HKP2000

            Nice try. No shift in my response and no logical reply to my statements.

            Please point out for me where I made any reference to my religious affiliation.
            You’re just an angry, militant that wont allow for a dissenting opinion!

          • Paul Hiett

            This is awesome. So tell my why you think that oath, written by men, is above God’s law?

          • HKP2000

            Your obvious inability to grasp subtlety, nuance, logic and to respond directly to any point raised make this a boring endeavor. Plenty of other stories to peruse.

          • R.A.

            Check out USA Today. A doctor refused to treat an infant because she had gay parents.

          • HKP2000

            An Australian man who bought a baby boy for $US8000 (NZ$10,321) with his partner, sexually abused the child and handed him off to other pedophiles to molest, has been sentenced to 40 years’ prison in the US.

            Judge Sarah Evans Barker, while sentencing the 42-year-old in the US District Court in Indianapolis on Friday, said he deserved a harsher punishment but accepted the plea deal because she did not want to subject jurors to the disturbing evidence.

            Prosecutors discovered videos and photos of the man, his domestic partner, also an Australian, and other men in Australia, the US, Germany and France abusing the child from the age of two to six.

            ”For more than one year and across three continents, these men submitted this young child to some of the most heinous acts of exploitation that this office has ever seen,” Indiana US Attorney Joe Hogsett said after the sentencing.

          • R.A.

            Can I condemn all heterosexuals because a man molests a little girl?

          • HKP2000

            No more so than condemn a Christian woman who declines service to homosexuals. Shoving everyone that thinks this situation is not right into a box such as “republican” or “religious zealot” is no more appropriate than saying “all homosexuals” are diseased, suicidally depressed, pedophiles. No one here has done that, yet you folks still try to force ALL that disagree with your lifestyle choices into some category designed to promote a sense of inferiority; and that’s wrong no matter how you look at it.

          • Oshtur

            And we had. Christian couple here in Washington that put videos of the foster children, boys and girls, on the web and the couple having a child just to abuse.

            There are freaky wicked people of all sexual orientations – your point?

          • HKP2000

            Indeed. My thumb hurts where you hit it with that hammer, please hit my thumb with that hammer again so it will quit hurting.

          • HKP2000

            What you are referencing is called “incrementalism”. Much like when homosexuality was classed as evil, then a mental disorder, then became a quirky behavior, then became something to celebrate, then became something to be expected, now apparently we are expected to celebrate it as normal or (dare I say, preferable) to the way mankind is genetically designed to function and flourish both socially and physically!

          • R.A.

            The second point you made about a doctor happened in Michigan recently. A pediatrician refused service to a child because of lesbian parents.

          • HKP2000

            Please reference the Hippocratic Oath (new version 1964) copied below. Did he violate his oath?

          • R.A.

            I would say it violates:
            1) “I will not play God.”
            A) I get to determine what God thinks and apply it to all people.
            B) I get to decide if the child gets treatment that could save its young life.
            2) “I will prevent disease”
            A) I will send this child out into the world without proper vaccination
            B) I will not treat a sick child, who may spread its illness to others.
            3) “special obligations to all my fellow human beings”
            A) that reads “all my fellow human beings” with no exceptions

            But even this little debate misses the point, I feel. The same ideology that allows me to refuse gay people can allow me to refuse people based on gender, age, race, particular religious belief, or political bent if I have a religious stance that backs up my refusal. You can say someone would be abusing the religious text to back up their belief, but then we begin saying which religious beliefs get an exemption, and then we’ve made a law respecting a given type or strain of belief in a particular religion.

            Based on these laws, I could refuse to serve Christians who don’t practice my same “brand” of Christianity.

          • HKP2000

            No! In this game you can either answer the specific question or try to deflect to some obscure point (which you have done).
            “Did the Dr. violate his Hippocratic Oath?”
            Clue – The answer is either YES or NO
            Rather simple if you try…

          • R.A.

            Deflection and elaboration are quite different. The answer is “Yes”, if it wasnt obvious, and I outlined why in my prior post.

          • HKP2000

            And in America, as a private citizen, I have the right as a freeman to provide my services to whomever I choose. No one is compelled to avail themselves of my services specifically. The entire difference is between that of a proprietorship and a corporation. Otherwise we would be nothing more than slaves to the public whim.
            The evil vindictiveness of the homo community that delights in this woman’s ruination is an anathema to the concept of a free man and his pursuit of liberty and commerce.

          • R.A.

            This same sort of argumentation was used to justify the prohibition of blacks in certain stores. The courts found this to conflict with the idea that all men are equal and the idea that separate is not equal.

          • HKP2000

            Please cite that SCOTUS decision for me, I must have missed it somehow.
            You can not take the liberty of one man to bestow upon another!!!

          • R.A.

            Look up the doctrine of separate but equal, which was used to justify Jim Crow laws and Black Codes. There were many cases. One of the most prominent was Brown v. Board of Education.

          • HKP2000

            The applicable statutes had nothing to do with private businesses. They were applied to public franchises (like voting) and public venues (like schools). You can not take liberty from one man and bestow it upon another. Private ownership and the liberty to transact business as we see fit was a principle reason we differed with the crown.

          • R.A.

            Jim Crow laws also applied to areas of public interplay, including restaraunts and transportation, businesses which are considered privately owned but open to the public. It was the “seperate but equal” doctrine on which the Jim Crow laws were based, and a doctrine at the heart of Brown v. Board of Ed. that was found unconstitutional.

  • Ruth Davis

    If the homosexual are simply interested in getting married then by all means do so it’s the law now , but what gives them the right after a person say they are christian to try and make Christians participate in their sin. Homosexuals will not go to a Jewish synagogue or a Muslim mosque why is that? I’m waiting for them to go to other religious establishment and force them to sin with them .Remember this the contitution says that Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of religion. Follow GOD’S plan Christians we knew this day would come . Christians the next time you vote for a president that saying it’s time for a change but doesn’t state what he or she is going to change , listen for the still small voice and start calling the churches that serve JESUS CHRIST to rally with us it’s time to start fighting them back. WE HAVE RIGHTS TOO UNDER THE CONTITUTION THAT SHALL NOT BE DENIED. GLORY TO THE MOST HIGH GOD.

    • Paul Hiett

      Ruth, this is about breaking the law, period. This business owner offered a service through her business to the general public. As such, she agreed to abide by the laws of commerce in this country. She willingly and knowingly broke the law.

    • Oshtur

      Ruth the constitution is what is protecting the customers and their belief in same-sex marriage. The business offered wedding floral services, and there couldn’t even be a law that allowed the business owner’s religion to supersede the customers.

      Can’t sell something to people of all faiths when you make a public offer, then don’t make the public offer in the first place, which is what Mz. Statesman is now doing – just not selling wedding floral services. Problem solved and sadly one she could have done and avoided this whole mess.

      • Sparedoor

        Except that at the time she started up her florist’s business and presumably became a Christian, such laws were not written in and upheld so fiercely. So a lady exercises her faith, only to lose her home and business. This has to be wrong; the punishment totally eclipses the ‘crime’.

        • Oshtur

          Bull, she just had the opportunity to settle this for $2,001.00 and run her business legally (which for her would just mean not selling wedding floral services since her conscience won’t let her do it in compliance with the law, less than 3% of her profit) and she would have been fine.

          She refused this generous offer. This is about being prideful, spiteful, judgemental – its becoming clear she is basically the anti-Christian.

          • Bingo

            That’s nonsense. Why should she settle for any price? She’s done nothing wrong.

          • Oshtur

            She violated the law by instructing her company to violate the Civil Rights Act protections. If a business can’t offer something to the general public without respecting their constitutional right to NOT share the belief of anyone at the business then they shouldn’t be offer that service to the public, simple as that.

            Won’t change and even if it did, the right to religious discrimination in a public offer ing would be the death stroke for America, or don’t you realize some of the largest businesses are Muslim owned and if this right was ‘discovered’ they could refuse to employ you, pay you less, or even refuse you service all with the excuse of ‘religious freedom’.

            You idiots are shooting everyone in the foot pursuing it at the behest of your Masters. Fortunately its most likely I won’t live long enough to see it but shame on you.

          • Bingo

            She never violated any law. In fact, being forced to do something against her convictions is a violation of her civil rights.

            Shame on you.

          • Oshtur

            Then she shouldn’t have offered the service as a public accommodation. She is just grandstanding and as self-righteous as they come. She could run her business in accordance with her ‘religious conscience’ and legally, she chose not to even when given two chances by the the Attorney General to run legally. She is scum.

          • Bingo

            Grandstanding? She shouldn’t have been expected to service an unholy union.

            The AG is scum.

          • anonymous

            She is not being anti christian the word of God teaches us not to participate in the sin of the world and by allowing her services to be used for a homosexual wedding is the same as participating, learn the truth before you speak and call someone anti christian

          • MisterPine

            “by allowing her services to be used for a homosexual wedding is the same as participating”

            No it isn’t.

    • R.A.

      But the point of contention deals with the religious rights of both the consumer and business owner. Under the same logic, one could discriminate based on skin color or gender if they had religious beliefs to back it up.

      • lynn

        I see different races at church. I don’t believe Christian churches discriminate.

        • R.A.

          Hi, Lynn. My point was that a business owner could refuse service based on any factor–including race, gender or age–as long as they claim religious reasons for doing so.

          I wasn’t saying that any church is discriminatory.

        • JohnVHedtke

          They certainly have in the past, pointing to the bible as their supposed justification. Consider the Dutch Reformed Church and apartheid as a single example among thousands. They have in the past and some of them still do; it’s just that people can’t get away with that particular brand of bigotry as openly anymore.

    • Malcolm Swall

      There is a tiny fraction of Christians, out of literally millions, who have a fringe view that somehow selling products that will be used in a marriage they don’t approve of somehow violates their religious rights.

      They are legally, and logically wrong. Selling things is commerce, not religious activity. Your religious rights are not infinite – if your religion tells you someone is worthy of death, you still don’t get a pass on murder or terrorism, however fervent your beliefs. Your religious beliefs are limited when they cause harm to others. Illegal discrimination in commerce is a harm. It harms those being discriminated against, and it harms society.

      You don’t get a pass to harm others, merely because you can point to a bible and say that proves it. Millions of other Christians look at the very same bible, and sell stuff to gays and lesbians all day long.

      • Steve Sykes

        How is not selling flowers harmful to you or others? About as silly an argument as you could put forward….Truth is you want to force your view upon others by force. No one is forcing anyone to buy this lady;s flowers or forcing a gay couple to go to a Christian wedding service. The fact is gays are forcing their views on others and causing harm to others by doing so. It so idiotic…You wouldn’t find a single Christian forcing their way in to a Gay store if they knew gays didn’t want to serve them. You won’t find Christians forcing you to accept Christian beliefs. That’s the difference between you and them. It is only by force you have even gotten this far…if it weren’t for federal activist judges Gay Marriage would still be illegal except for in a couple of States because the people within those States unanimously voted to amend their Constitutions to forbid it. Gays activists are the harm and the force of the tiny minority over the majority.

        • Oshtur

          Exactly if she feels she can’t sell wedding floral services legally why sell them at all? This very day Arlene’s Flowers LLC no longer offers wedding floral services to the general public, obeying the law AND the owner’s religious conscience.

          The obvious and best solution – the question is why didn’t she take the AG’s generous offer?

          • Steve Sykes

            My question is why should she have to? I just don’t get it…if someone told me I wasn’t welcome in their store I would just tell them to screw off and be on my way. I wouldn’t be a fool and file a discrimination suit. There shouldn’t even be a law for that anyway..Its totally against the principals of freedom and liberty. Just becuase you own a local shop does not give the government the right to come in and tell you who you must or must not serve. Besides, like I said why even force the issue to begin with. I see storeis all the time of Gays knowingly going to Christian marriage services and asking to be married knowing they aren’t going to and file a stupid discrimination suit, how ridiculous is that? Its wrong and intentionally and maliciously harmful. Do they care that they are harming people? Absolutely not…All they care about is forcing everyone to see it their way. Besides, where does this end? In my opinion Gays have as much right to get married and served as someone marrying their pet, someone marrying their child or someone marrying 10 women. Gays have no more standing then those people. I would argue polygamy has more considering its been done legally since the dawn of man. Yet some how, some way, without any foundational solid argument they’ve carved an exception out.

          • Oshtur

            Why couldn’t the black guy get a different hotel in Atlanta, why couldn’t the black teen get his Slurpee™ at a different 7-11? These are two of the much cited civil rights cases that back up a person’s right to public accommodation, since invidious discrimination is immoral regardless of how ‘severe’ some might think it is.

            Every person in Washington state has the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement; to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, séx, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

            That’s why she should give up offering wedding floral services, because her complaint is that selling them to some people goes against her religious conscience. If so then why the heck is she even offering it to the general public when she knows her business is required to do so legally including the previously quoted conditions?

            Her religion doesn’t allow same-sex marriage? Tough, many think they are blessed and required by God for all sexually active same-sex believers. The Washington state constitution specifically says that liberty of religious conscience is not an excuse to act without regard for the rights of others, those very same previously mentioned civil rights this business owner disregarded when they refused a customer because of their beliefs.

            The constitutional, legal, moral and Christian solution is just not offer anything for sale to the public they can’t sell to people and still obey the law, just like they are doing now by not offering wedding floral services.

            It should take the settlement from the AG, and just continue as it is today – not offering anything to the pubic the owner feels they can’t sell legally to that same public.

          • Steve Sykes

            The difference is of course you can’t discriminate against humans in general.She was not wanting to participate in an activity. I doubt she asks people if they are gay before she sells them flowers. In fact in the story it makes it clear she’s served this gay man regularly.The Gay customer obviously and intentionally made it known this was for a gay wedding. She did not want to participate in the activity because it was against her religious beliefs. Your argument falls flat on its face.

          • Oshtur

            She was never invited to the wedding, she would have never been required to participate in the wedding. Arlene’s Flower LLC had employees that would have been happy to have handled the transaction from counter to completion that didn’t go against their religious conscience at all.

            And you seem to have overlooked the “…the right to the full enjoyment of any…” part of the customer’s civil rights.

            There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offering, the customer’s own right to religious freedom and exercise protects them from it at the federal and state level.

            Your argument turns out to not be an argument at all. Either the business sells wedding floral arrangements or they don’t. If they don’t then the business’s owner doesn’t have to participate in any weddings, problem solved legally.

          • Steve Sykes

            If you’re trying to argue that the law says something then there was no point in arguing. Obviously the law was interpreted your way. The story isn’t about the law being misinterpreted its about the law being unconstitutional because it violates her natural rights which trumps statutory law btw.

            But as I said your argument has no foundation. Gay people do not have any more rights to have their activity included in law than those I listed prior such as an adult marrying a child, pet, or 10 other people. Denying those is just as discriminatory under the same law you posted. So why hasn’t the government made those available for a marriage license? I would like to see you answer.that and still carve out an exception for gays being married and it make sense. Because you can’t say its the will of the people. Almost every State that has adopted gay marriage was forced to do so by a federal judge. Who, by himself struck down Constitutional amendments forbidding it which were adopted by a unanimous vote of the people.

          • Oshtur

            Hmmm, civil rights are just as natural as any other right – they are all equal. And this is about sexual orientation, not merely one type of that – gay.

            And both the listing of sexual orientation in this statute and marriage equality were passed both by the legislature and confirmed by a popular vote of the people.

            And this could be a case about creed too since my creed says that same-sex marriage is a blessed as any other – don’t make an offer to the public if you aren’t going to respect their rights as delineated in the constitutions and the law.

            But as you have made clear, this isn’t about finding a way for the business owner to act according to their religious conscience at all – there is an easy solution – don’t behave illegally in your invitations to the public. No this is about trying to establish a right to religious discrimination in public offers by very stupid people. If you can claim religious conscience to reject a customer you can do it because there a Christian too. This would open the door for someone to charge people of certain faiths different rates, refuse them as customers, require religious usage oaths with purchases.

            This isn’t about operating in accord with religious conscience, its about trying to tear down the religious protections of the constitution.

          • Steve Sykes

            I suppose you’ll never see it my way and I never yours. But I think we both provided different view points. I appreciate the civility in the discussion without name calling which is refreshing.

            I just wish that differences of opinions and beliefs could be accepted instead of forced as I see them with gay activists. You state its “about trying to establish a right to religious discrimination in public offers” but you ignore that most everyone would discriminate at some point…its just where their line is drawn. There are things that not even you would accept as normal or acceptable. Your lines are just drawn differently than most Christians or others for that matter..You take for granted that being gay is and should be acceptable behavior and assume that being gay is no different than being black. But…that’s simply not true to others and you miss that. As I said, even you would discriminate at some point. There would be some activity you would not condone, help or participate in no matter what unless you’re simply totally morally bankrupt. And, at that point you would be just as concerned had you owned a business like hers that you could not continue business unless you participated, helped or condoned the morally reprehensible activity. I mean, what moral position could you claim if you profited from the very activity you claim is immoral?

          • Oshtur

            Well sexual orientation was supported to be on equal footing as race by a vote of the people. And there are two other business models the owners could run where they could discriminate with wild abandon – private club or non-profit.

            But if they are going to advertise to the general public then we the people have regulated how that business relationship will proceed. Saying a business can’t reject a customer because of their creed or sexual orientation is no different than saying they have to pay a minimum wage. These are the rules, play the game within them.

            Again wedding floral services account for less than 3% of Arlene’s Flowers business if they can’t sell them legally then just don’t sell them as part of the public accommodation. If they want to spin off a second corporations, form a private club to sell them being free of the civil rights law. If there is a need to discriminate do it legally too.

    • Peter Leh

      ruth, this was a bad business decision on the owners part. there is no religious persecution going on

    • tyler

      There’s no sin. It’s selling some flowers.

      Get over yourself.
      Pick something else to worry about.

      • ogail

        Are you sure?? please go and study christian ethics and how a christian respond to sin

  • Gary

    This case proves that Christians face a hostile government in many places. We are going to have to be to careful about the type and location for our businesses. Store-front businesses may not be wise in some places.

    • Paul Hiett

      “Hostile”…lol. Yes, the ebil big bad gummint hates Christians, rather than simply wanting all businesses to abide by the established law.

      You’re hilarious.

      • Gary

        You don’t care about established law when it comes to marriage.

        • Paul Hiett

          The difference is, we’re working to get it changed….legally.

    • Badkey

      This case proves Christians create hostile situations for themselves and their businesses with their hypocrisy.

    • Malcolm Swall

      This case proves that a very tiny percentage of self identified Christians think that they can get away with illegal discrimination, if they can quote the bible while they do.

  • NotTooLate.

    “Tolerance.”

  • rodney

    blessed are those who are prosecuted in the name of JESUS he is your great provider

  • Beverly Schutrum Krinock

    The government has no business in this. The Attorney General never received a complaint but still sent her a letter. He needs to keep his nose out of others business unless he got the complaint. Government is in our business too much.

  • Richard French

    What ever happened to the right to refuse service to anyone, the prerogative of the business owner???

  • Harry Oh!

    Gays and straights don’t mix, they are literally 180 degrees opposed to each other. Forcing nice old ladies to throw away centuries old beliefs that are important to them exposes the true character of the gay mind set. They know that they can never achieve their goals by reason or rational debate, so they instead jam, punish, rip and tear. Think we all know how that will end.

    • Malcolm Swall

      One or two anecdotes about bakers and photographers make good headlines mostly because they are rare. There are literally millions of bakers and photographers who are not in the news for illegal behavior, because they don’t actually violate the law.

      It is a tiny fraction of self identified Christians who even think that having a gay customer somehow violates their beliefs – the vast majority have no problem at all.

      It is hyperbolic to look at one or two examples and assume that the rest of the millions of citizens are not getting along.

      • Harry Oh!

        Pull thine head out of thine butt, it’s not a small group of people, religious or otherwise, who think that being gay is a biological error. The only people fooling themselves with that lie are the gays themselves.

        • Paul Hiett

          Nothing wrong with being “gay”…sexual orientation is never and has never been a choice, unlike religion.

          • Harry Oh!

            Except for the gays that go back to being straight right.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, sexual orientation is never a choice. Bisexual people exist just as straight and gay people exist.

            If you think sexual orientation is just a choice, then you’re saying that you find both men and women attractive to you.

            Would that accurately describe you?

          • Harry Oh!

            I don’t have a mental condition that confuses me so bad that I don’t know what’s natural or normal anymore. That is how to accurately describe me. You should get some help for your condition.

          • Paul Hiett

            Wow, can’t even have a legitimate conversation with you…

  • Reason2012

    If you allow homosexual marriage to pass in your state, which in effect is a new state religion, this just proves yet again it’s about criminalizing Christian beliefs.

    There’s no such thing as a “same-gender marriage”. The issue is does the state have the right to re-define religious institutions and pass laws to establish this new religious institution, which would in effect be passing laws to establish a new state religion (violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment), which in turn would criminalize Christian belief about marriage (another violation of the First Amendment).

    And on both counts, states do not have any right to do any such thing – we’re protected from such judicial religious tyranny by the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Not to mention that every single man already has the same right as every other man: to marry one woman. And every single woman already has the same right as every single woman: to marry one man. So the claim anyone’s being denied “equal rights” is a lie.

    Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

    Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

    Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

    Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

    Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

    Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

    Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

    As if that’s not enough,

    (1) Marriage is a religious institution that has existed since the beginning of time.

    (2) The government is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by REDEFINING religious institutions then passing laws to establish this new state religion where anyone who does not adhere to this new state religion is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined thousands of dollars.

    (3) Marriage is for the possibility of procreation for the continuance of society. A same-gender marriage is, by design, never capable of such a thing.

    (4) Any pro-creation should be within a marriage – same-gender ‘marriages’ are forced to go outside the ‘marriage” 100% of the time by design.

    (5) Kids have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father – same-gender marriages deny them this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (6) Kids have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, not forced into setups that are dysfunctional 100% of the time: two or more fathers and no mother, or two or more mothers and no father.

    (7) Every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature alone re-iterates what marriage is – that this is what a family is.

    (8) A black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people cannot be forced to bake cakes for the ACT of a “whites are supreme” meeting and so on. LIkewise a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for those who currently profess homosexuality cannot be forced to bake a cake for the ACT of a same-gender wedding.

    • Reason2012

      Even children who grew up forced to be in homosexual “households” condemn it and expose it for the depravity is truly inflicts on children.

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

      Christian beliefs criminalized: fined many thousands of dollars and sued if you get out of line with this new State Religion

      A sampling of how criminalizing Christian beliefs on marriage because it now violates this new State Religion and how all of this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States on many levels:

      Mayor calls own city’s churches “criminals”.

      http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/mayor-calls-own-citys-churches-criminals/

      Bakery fined $150,000

      http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/

      Christian fired by Ford for expressiong his disagreement over them promoting homosexuality in newsletters.

      http://christiannews.net/2015/02/08/ford-contractor-says-he-was-fired-for-speaking-against-companys-support-of-homosexuality/

      • Malcolm Swall

        Umm, that is an amazing amount of wrong packed into a short post.

        There are always children who are willing to criticize their parents. There are thousands of children from heterosexual marriages who also have legitimate complaints about their upbringing. It makes no rational argument to argue against heterosexual marriage.

        IF your community passes a law that makes it a crime to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and IF you cannot in good conscience follow the law, it is on YOU to find a new line of work, or find a new community to work in. Arguably, you could work to change the law, but in the mean time, you can either comply with the law, or face the consequences of your illegal behavior.

        • Reason2012

          No, the complaints are centered around the depraved upbringing they received as a direct result of the situation itself – not just complaints about things that every kid has to learn to just accept. Huge difference.

          It’s not “discrimination” for a black man to refuse to bake a cake for the ACT of a “whites are superior” meeting, no matter how much you try to claim it is. More so when said black man has NO problem baking cakes for white people. Same for Christians who have no problem baking a cake for ANYONE but cannot be forced to promote sinful ACTS.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Baking a cake is not a “sinful act.” It is just a job. IF you sell wedding cakes, and IF there is a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, you will violate the law if you discriminate.

            IF you cannot comply with both the law and your beliefs, you need to find a new job.

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t say baking a cake in general is a sinful act – but baking a cake to PROMOTE or CELEBRATE a sinful act is the issue.

            It’s not discrimination for a black baker to refuse to bake a cake for the ACT of a “whites are superior” meeting – neither is is discrimination for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a sinful ACT as well. They have no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals, which alone refutes your need to call it discrimination.

            If you cannot comply with the Constitution, you need to find a new country.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Your opinion is at odds with the legal reality. Refusing to sell a wedding cake on the basis of discrimination is against the law, you get prosecuted when you break the law.

            If you cannot both act lawfully AND follow your faith, you need a new job.

  • Steve67

    Obsessing over whether this is, by the letter of the law, an actual case of discrimination is really beside the point as far as I am concerned. Whether the laws apply or not, anti-discrimination laws were not intended for self-serving d-bags who are clearly just out to do irreprable damage to someone simply because she will not compromise her convictions for them. The woman gave them the names of three other businesses that would make the cake for them. She was clearly not trying to impose her beliefs on anyone. If she was she would not have made that recommendation. She was simply trying to exercise her religious freedom. I am guessing this gay couple targeted the business owner and set out to either force her to comply or ruin her. Legally justified or not, the actions of this gay couple show that they are more than likely completely selfish.

    • Malcolm Swall

      Your lack of understanding of the legal issues is only exceeded by your lack of empathy for fellow citizens.

      Discrimination in commerce is a harm. It harms the individuals and it harms society. That is why the laws were enacted – to prevent that harm. If you cannot see that harm, you obviously have never been the target of commercial discrimination.

      If you cannot both comply with the law and your religious beliefs, you need to find a new line of work.

  • Oshtur

    Well they need to change the headline because Baronelle now can totally avoid losing her home and savings – the Washington attorney general has just offered to settle the case for the $2,000 fine and $1 in legal fees. All she needs to do is follow the law in the future, and she can just do what she’s doing now – not offer wedding floral services to the general public.

    Ball is in Baronelle’s court.

    • Gary

      She should sell her business, and her other property, and relocate to a state that is more friendly to Christians. If she decides to remain in that state, then she should still sell that business and either retire or go into a business that is less apt to be the target of homosexuals and their enablers.

      • Malcolm Swall

        She should find a business where her beliefs do not conflict with the law. She would not be a “target”, if she stopped behaving illegally.

  • P.A.

    be inclusive or be closed.

  • jorgelm123

    We must start a GoFundMe page for this sister!

    • Badkey

      The judge reduced financial charges to $2,001. I’m sure she can handle it.

  • elizabeth

    This woman did no harm she refused to bake a for something that is against her religious beliefs . Hopefully some steps in to help to save this poor woman who is being persecuted for her beliefs. These people and their choice of Lifestyle are destroying this country. We should go back to don’t ask don’t tell policy it was the right move. Only a year left before things go back to the way they were two years ago and laws are changed back to normal.

    • Oshtur

      It has been illegal to religiously discriminate in a public offering in Washington state constituionally since the ink on its constitution dried in 1889 and legally since the passing if it’s first civil rights act in 1949.

      2 years back won’t help you.

    • Paul Hiett

      So, this woman chooses to discriminate, but it’s the gays, who did nothing wrong, that are destroying the country.

      Yes, logic is alive and well here today!

  • Truthhurts24

    The fact that sodomites are attacking the only faith and people that tries to save them from total destruction is not surprising at all for they even tried to rape holy angels which explains just how wicked this force of demonic influence is to those in that lifestyle. Christians are an abomination to these people and there can never be friendship with them because like the above article explained they will stab Christians in the back to get their way. Look at what the sodomite is doing to this wonderful lady trying to destroy her whole life over flowers this is the real nature of the sodomite a destructive person which seeks to corrupt all decency like a virus let loose. I pray that this lady will receive a great blessing from Christ and be able to live in peace.

  • Sparedoor

    So Robert Ingersoll can get his and Curt’s flowers anywhere. But Baronelle Stutzman, who cannot (like all Christian believers) find eternal salvation anywhere else, is ‘guilty’ for not supplying him flowers. If she were the only florist he could have gone to then he may be forgiven for being upset, but she wasn’t. And what of her religious freedoms? I wonder what the outcome would have been had a Muslim florist refused his request. And what of the ignorant and prejudiced County Superior Court Judge Eckstrom? This should clearly be outside his remit, or does he stick his nose into the business of everyone who offends his anti-Christian sensibilities?

  • Bingo

    God bless this lovely lady, who exercised her right, despite the love she had for this man who she had a friendship with. God will defend her and protect her from the hatred that is being poured out on her.

  • fuobl

    Will she be executed or just put in jail. Different rules for different groups, this will not end well.

  • fuobl

    It funny when Starbucks tells me I can’t carry my gun in their store violating my Constitutional rights these Leftists are silent. Liberal have no rules they follow. Whatever their stance is on an issue is what they will will argue for. Laws and rights mean nothing to them.

    • tyler

      It’s funny that you point out ‘laws and rights’.
      This case is about clearly violating discrimination laws and rights.
      So I guess you can change your statement to ‘laws and rights mean nothing to conservatives’

      • fuobl

        You have that backwards son. In this case the suspect is being penalized. Starbucks violates my rights and nothing happens. It’s the Democrat Liberals that support the double standard.

      • fuobl

        You love selective enforcement. My rights mean nothing to you. So your statement that “laws and rights mean nothing to conservatives” is beyond irononic. It’s illogical on its face.

  • anonymous

    Actually shops usually have a sign that says they have the right to refuse service to anyone. So i think its a right that she had and she used it.

    • Paul Hiett

      In a case like this, no, that sign does not work. There are protected statuses for citizens here, such as race, gender, religion, and yes, sexual orientation. Businesses may not discriminate against people for those reasons.

      • anonymous

        Oh really so a the sign stating they can refuse service to anyone suddenly doesnt apply, wow you pro homo pro lesbian idiots will make up anything to say whats wrong or right hahahaha freaks

  • Philip Redfivestandingby Bonie

    The following interview was between Jimmy Z of “The Jimmy Z Show” and Debra JM Smith of InformingChristians.com They discussed a strategy which Christian businesses could use to discourage harrassment by homosexuals, whom they would not rather do business with. This could be employed on a wide scale. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3De_5dz7zOYFI&h=LAQHJuwJX

  • tyler

    I don’t feel one bit sorry for her. She’ll get what she deserves.
    How about try not discriminating?

  • charginglife

    God will be here soon to correct everything that has gone wrong, until then leave it in His hands. Thank You Jesus!