Christian Florist Found Guilty of Discrimination for Declining ‘Gay Wedding’ to Appeal

StutzmanKENNEWICK, Wash. — A Christian florist from Washington who is in jeopardy of losing her business, home and life savings after a judge found her guilty of discrimination this week for declining to fulfill an order for a same-sex ceremony will appeal the decision.

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.

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

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.

But ADF says that it will file an appeal of the decision and continue the fight.

“You put your home, your family business, and your life savings at risk by daring to defy a government mandate that forces you to promote views you believe are wrong,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued the case before the court.

“I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment,” Stutzman added. “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
  • Gary

    I admire Stutzman’s determination, but the legal system is stacked against her. I don’t think the appeal will do anything to solve her legal problems. You can’t fight this in the courts because they are biased against Christians. You have to be smart enough to stay out of the legal system.

    • Paul Hiett

      ROFL…how, exactly, is a court “biased” against Christians when this lady clearly discriminated against someone? She doesn’t deny it, she even admits it. She discriminated based on a legally protected status. If you don’t want to follow the laws in this country, either work to change them, or leave. If you choose to break the law, you have to be willing to accept the punishment.

      • Gary

        The law that she violated is an unjust law. The unjust laws are upheld by the courts. Most judges are wicked, non-Christians who are in rebellion against God and biased against those who try to follow God.

        • Paul Hiett

          Whether you think a law is unjust or not is moot. Work to change the laws, but until then, you must abide by them or be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions. Pretty simple.

          • Gary

            I would prefer to avoid situations where my discrimination is easily proven. Getting around some of the unjust laws is not that hard, but being in certain situations, like this woman put herself in, increases the risk. I prefer to minimize the risk as much as possible. But the more unjust laws that are passed, the more difficult it becomes. And the more inventive it you have to be to avoid prosecution.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, if you feel a law is unjust, work to legally change it. Until then, you must accept the consequences if you choose to break those laws. I don’t know how much more simple it can be explained.

          • Gary

            Who am I going to convince to change the unjust laws? The same people who made them to start with? Yeah, right.
            I break unjust laws all the time, without consequences. It takes some work and some planning, but it can be done.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so you just go around breaking whatever laws you don’t like.

            Typical Christian.

          • Gary

            Probably not all of them. But certainly the ones the conflict with my religion.

          • MisterPine

            If your religion is telling you it’s OK to kill gay people, do you think maybe you chose the wrong religion?

          • Jack

            Are you saying that illegally discriminate — you’re just careful not to get caught?

    • Jack

      Actually, the courts are bound by mandatory Supreme Court precedent. This case is just like that of Elaine Huguenin, who lost in the Human Rights Commission, lost in district court, lost in the appeals court, lost in state supreme court and was turned down by the US Supreme Court.

      All under the able guidance of the ADF.

  • Oshtur

    Considering the Attorney General has offered to settle the case for the required $2,000 fine and $1 in legal fees for a promise to obey the law in the future. Considering Arlene’s is now by not offering wedding floral services, this deal could be taken, the owner never have to do a wedding again, and all her assets safe.

    Ball is in Baronelle’s court. We will just have to see how puffed up she is and will she take this generous deal that allows her to act as she thinks her religion demands legally.

    Or will the ADF let her? If she tries to escape their grasp they may give her s bill for their legal services.

    • SFBruce

      One would think a good lawyer would give Stutzman your excellent advice, but the ADF certainly doesn’t seem to have her interests at heart. They’d rather and use this case to attract attention and raise money, even though they surely know how unlikely they are to prevail.

  • Dale Morris Russom

    This just goes to show that we really don’t have religious freedom in this country. We are forced to commit all kinds of sin to placate those who see nothing wrong with sin. It has become a society where right is wrong and wrong is right. The devil has a hugh party every time a Christian gets shot down. That freedom is being taken away every time a Christian is forced to do something against their beliefs. She should close the florist shop and move it into her home and make it a a private business like the lady in Oregon did with her wedding cakes.
    Or,perhaps it is time to retire and enjoy life without all the turmoil. And make new friends.

    • Paul Hiett

      Adhering to the laws governing commerce is not a “sin”. As a business owner, you accept to follow those laws, or you can suffer the consequences as this lady did.

      Yes, you do have religious freedom, but you do not have the freedom to break laws and discriminate against others. Those same laws also protect you, but I doubt you’ll appreciate that, because it flies in the face of your faux oppression claims.

      • Gary

        The wicked like to design the laws in such a way that they can have an out. They say, “Yes, you can have religious freedom, but only if you don’t have a business. You can choose whether you want freedom, or the business. But it is your choice. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.”

        • Paul Hiett

          You lose all credibility when you have to sink to using words like “wicked” to describe people who have broken no laws, and have only been the subject of blatant Christian intolerance. Also, your version of “religious freedom” is nothing more than a thinly veiled desire to discriminate and hate whomever you want without repercussion. Fortunately, that mind set is a backwoods, redneck ideology, and one that is quickly fading from this country.

          • Gary

            Thanks for getting everything wrong, and for underestimating us.

          • Paul Hiett

            What law has a homosexual broken? By all means, educate me on this. And please, while I love a good laugh, do so without citing the BIble…that is not a legal document.

            I await your canned “I follow Gods law” response.

          • Gary

            Under current civil law, it is more legal to be a pervert, then it is to be a Christian. And that is why I have come to hate this country.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you can’t cite any actual laws that homosexuals are breaking. I didn’t think so.

            You know, there are other countries out there that will allow you to hate gays in a more physical manner. Heck, some of them will even let you kill them!!!

            Why don’t you consider moving there if you hate equality for everyone so much?

          • Gary

            I would rather run you out of this country.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well of course you would, since you’re a hateful, spite ridden Christian, but the difference between you and I is that I don’t need a book to tell me right from wrong. Sadly, you do…and you still get it wrong.

          • Gary

            I am delighted about your future.

          • Paul Hiett

            So am I…probably another 45-50 years of happiness, based upon my current health and family history.

          • Gary

            Bet it isn’t nearly that long. Or as “happy” as you expect. And then, there is what comes next.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, since your particular belief is one out of 42,000, and that 42,000 is representative of one religion out of 4200+ religions, I’m not exactly worried about it.

          • Gary

            Good. Don’t ever change what you believe. I would encourage you to make a special effort to violate as many of God’s laws as you can. That way, your future will be even more satisfying to me.

          • Paul Hiett

            Which god would that be? There are thousands…

          • Gary

            When I say “God”, I am talking about the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ. If I refer to another god, I never capitalize the word.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so just your version of a god. Again, there are thousands, so I’m not exactly worried. I’d say the odds are clearly in my favor.

          • Gary

            Fine. Just keep doing what you are doing.

          • Paul Hiett

            I am, thanks!!!

          • Jack

            Ah, like Christians back in the days of the colonies.

          • Badkey

            Move, hypocrite.

          • Oboehner

            I suppose the freedom of religion spoke of in the Constitution (which doesn’t exclude business owners) doesn’t count.
            So let’s see what happened here, a couple of perverts got their little feeling hurt, and a good woman lost her business and her life savings.

          • Paul Hiett

            She didn’t lose her business, or her life savings. $2001 fine is all. Yes, we have freedom of religion, but that freedom stops where the rights of others begin.

            You cannot force another person to live by the rules of your religion. I don’t think you get this. Freedom of religion has never and will never give you carte blanche to discriminate against other human begins, regardless of how intolerant your religious texts are.

            The law was clear…discrimination against others for sexual orientation is illegal. She knew this, and willingly broke the law. How is that preventing her from believing what she wants to believe?

          • Oboehner

            “Yes, we have freedom of religion, but that freedom stops where the rights of others begin.” The rights of deviants have no such limitations, they can steam-roll over anyone’s rights.

          • Paul Hiett

            And this is why you will continue to be wrong. You are incapable of logical thought.

          • Oboehner

            Great non-answer, and I’m incapable of logical thought… whatever.

          • Paul Hiett

            You seem to think that your choice of a religion somehow grants you special rights over everyone else. Why is that?

          • Oboehner

            You seem to think that your choice of a perversion somehow grants you special rights over everyone else. Why is that?

          • Paul Hiett

            First, I’m not gay, but that’s irrelevant. One’s sexual orientation is a protected status in this country. It does NOT give anyone any special rights over another person. Gays cannot discriminate against straight people either, so despite your ignorance, it does give them any more rights than you have.

          • Oboehner

            Sure you’re not gay.

          • Paul Hiett

            So that’s your response? To call names? Cute.

          • Oboehner

            Just going with the flow.

          • MisterPine

            When you have nothing factual to say you resort to name calling. Model Christian or what.

          • Oboehner

            “Why should I engage with a Christian supremacist over something you wouldn’t comprehend anyway?”

          • MisterPine

            That’s not name calling. That’s a simple fact.

          • Oboehner

            Back atcha.

          • MisterPine

            I’m not Christian, you are, and you’re the one calling people turd burglars.

          • Oboehner

            You prefer “sodomites”?

          • MisterPine

            Why do you need to use a loaded phrase or firebrand at all? Call them homosexuals. You know “sodomite” isn’t the right word with all the straight people who engage in sodomy.

          • Oboehner

            All gay men are sodomites, incessantly and pointlessly bringing up heterosexuals who engage it sodomy is an idiotic desperation move, you can give it a rest it doesn’t help your case.

          • MisterPine

            OK, still not bothered by facts, I see…

            http://gaylife.about.com/od/gaysexadvice/qt/allgaymenanalsex.htm

            See? NOT ALL GAY MEN engage in sodomy. And yet you hold on to your word “sodomites”. Why?

          • Oboehner

            LOL, I’m supposed to believe a gay website – no agenda there.

          • MisterPine

            You should believe it specifically BECAUSE it’s a gay website. What, gay men are going to lie to each other?

          • Badkey

            Actually, gay citizens have no federal public accommodations protections like the hypocritical religious people.

            They actually have more “special rights”.

          • MisterPine

            But to you Oboehner, a perversion depends on the gross-out factor to you and no one else. Sodomy between two homosexuals is depraved and deviant to you but between a man and a woman it’s just fine. Which makes you a hypocrite first class. And when people point that out to you, you accuse them of being supporters of pedophilia.

          • Oboehner

            Again with the “between a man and a woman” sodomy thing, but since that dead horse is all you have, you just keep beating it. Read slowly: I said many times before I don’t condone that type of activity.

          • MisterPine

            But you only choose to fight it when it occurs between male homosexuals to whom you extend lovely Christian names like ‘turd burglars”. Like I said, you are a hypocrite.

          • Oboehner

            Beat that dead horse!

          • MisterPine

            If the horse is dead, then you gave up on the challenge you were faced with which was to state why you attack sodomy in gay men but choose to give it a free pass in straight couples.

          • Oboehner

            Quote the part of the above story that talks about heterosexuals going after this woman, or drop it – I will not respond to it otherwise.

          • MisterPine

            In that case, stop using the word “sodomite” because you’re confusing people. Say homosexuals and keep the firebrands to yourself.

          • Oboehner

            I suppose “butt pirates” is to descriptive for you.

          • MisterPine

            Just more brainless, hateful fundie trash-talk. I expect nothing less from you.

          • Oboehner

            Booty bandits?

          • Badkey

            How is it special rights? You get the same public accommodations protections from the Civil Rights Act, you raging hypocrite.

          • Oboehner

            How many gay businesses have been shut down because they disagree with chosen activities others?

          • Badkey

            The laws are what they are, hypocrite. You enjoy your special protections and decry them when extended to others. Ask the bakery in Colorado being sued by a vengeful fundy.

          • Oboehner

            If they contradict the Constitution, they are non-law.
            The “fundy” is vengeful, but the perverts are ok, right marian?

          • MisterPine

            Is your name really Marian? Oboehner seems to think it is.

          • MisterPine

            If by “perversion” you mean sodomy, once again you’re not explaining why you’re giving a free pass to the straight people who engage in it. It’s not a dead horse, sonny. It’s very relevant and would go a long way to explaining your hypocrisy.

          • Oboehner

            “you’re not explaining why you’re giving a free pass to the straight people who engage in it.” *sigh* for the umpteenth and last time, pay attention to this now, I am not giving anyone a free pass.

          • MisterPine

            You absolutely are. You’re getting all bent out of shape about what you call perversion but are only calling for the heads of the male homosexuals, not the straight couples who do exactly the same thing in the bedroom. Not that it’s anyone’s business anyway.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz….

          • MisterPine

            I rest my case.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “and I’m incapable of logical thought”

            Well at least we can agree on that.

          • Bruce Morrow

            No Paul he simply fails to agree with your flawed points is all. As I DO.

          • Bruce Morrow

            Come on Paul Hiett they are going after EVERYTHING this poor woman owns and has, even her house! Wake up and smell some reality. As a Christian I KNOW the natural man is NOT subject to the law of God nor indeed can be. They are dead in tresspasses and sins and alienated from the life of God. YET that does not mean as a Christian I have to celebrate your beloved SIN of homosexuality nor cater to you wanting me to participate in the same. I have the FREEDOM to decline at this point (as you said so accurately “that freedom STOPS where the RIGHTS OF OTHERS BEGIN”. In this case this Christian woman’s rights.

          • Paul Hiett

            You clearly have not been following this story. $2001 fine.

            You don’t have to like someone’s sexual orientation, but you are not allowed to discriminate against it if you choose to open a business and advertise to the general public.

            Regardless of ones religious choice, everyone is subject to that law. Why is it so hard to understand this?

          • Badkey

            You need to read the rest of this story.

          • Badkey

            She refused to accept the negotiations. The ADF is using her to get a federal case out of this.

          • Bruce Morrow

            That is exactly what happened. Funny the sodomites seem always to go to Christian owned businesses KNOWING full well no real Christian will approve of their wickedness.

          • Paul Hiett

            So it wasn’t that a frequent customer just wanted some flowers for a wedding, what you’re saying happened is that this particular “customer” sought out a Christian business owner, established a long history of being a faithful customer, and then sprung this deviant plan to “get her”?

            Do you even listen to yourself talk?

          • Oboehner

            That’s ok though, that “right” is protected unlike one’s religious beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            Tell me how your religious rights are not protected? Are you not free to go to church? Are you not free to worship whatever version of whatever religion you choose? Are you not free to raise your children as whatever religion you choose? Are you not free to display your faith’s symbols on your cars, shirts, jewelry, homes, etc? Are you not free to stand on a corner and preach your faith?

            What right, specifically, do you think was removed?

          • Badkey

            You lie. They offered her a $2,001 out on this and she refused. Other than the ADF, the only person she has to blame is herself.

          • MisterPine

            Sodomy is practiced more often by straight people than gay people. You might want to find another word to use.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You may find it beneficial from a position of legal understanding to review:

            United States v Lee

            Christian Legal Society v Martinez

            As well as understanding that: “For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even when the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”

          • Oboehner

            An activity choice hardly qualifies, when one’s activities infringes on another’s religious beliefs, there is a problem. Not doing business with these sickos won’t stop their ability to get nasty with each other.

          • Badkey

            Then why do you demand it for the choice to follow a mythology, and the behaviors that go along with it?

          • Oboehner

            Mythology like exploding dots, primordial ooze, and speciation and all of the racism and ethnic cleansing that goes with it?

          • MisterPine

            Wait, I thought you said Badkey was a marian?

          • Oboehner

            Your point?

          • MisterPine

            Ah. Never mind. I had to make the jump to how your mind works first.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “An activity choice hardly qualifies”

            The category coverage is not based upon activity. It is based upon sexuality. Heterosexuals are equally covered.

            “when one’s activities infringes on another’s religious beliefs”

            They asked to order flowers. That was the only activity that was involved. Asking to order flowers does not infringe on anyone’s ability to believe as they care to.

          • Oboehner

            Nobody else has flowers so the deviants have to try and strip the business away from that woman?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Nobody else has flowers so the deviants have to try and strip the business away from that woman?”

            Most likely there are other florists available. How is that relevant? Are you suggesting that as long as there is a service provider available that doesn’t break the law, it is fine for other business to break the law?

          • Oboehner

            Why don’t you re-read my posts instead of asking me the same asinine questions over and over.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I have not asked those questions of you before.

            Are you unable to answer questions about the positions you put forth?

          • Jack

            Of course business owners aren’t excluded. That’s why the woman was sued in her individual capacity. But freedom of religion is not something guaranteed to businesses.

            You must be thinking of a different incident though. There were no perverts. There were two gay men. And no feelings were hurt but a law was broken. No business has been lost. No life savings have been lost. I hope you find the right forum to comment in but for now you should stfu.

            🙂

          • Oboehner

            “There were no perverts. There were two gay men.” Contradiction there.
            “That’s why the woman was sued in her individual capacity. But freedom of religion is not something guaranteed to businesses.” Then her freedom of religion applies in her individual capacity.
            “No business has been lost.” Yet, I see two possible scenarios here 1)She keeps the business open and is further targeted by sodomites and the like to finish the job. 2)she closes voluntarily to avoid having to go through no. 1. Either way purveyors of a deviant lifestyle choice have ruined her life.
            ” And no feelings were hurt…” Then why the lawsuit? I’m sure there was other florists who could have catered to the debauchery celebration.
            “…but a law was broken.” The First Amendment, and probably various sodomy laws.

            I hope you find the right deviant forum to comment in but for now you should try the Mid-Atlantic Leathermen site, it’s right up your alley (so to speak).

          • Jack

            “”There were no perverts. There were two gay men.” Contradiction there.

            “That’s why the woman was sued in her individual capacity. But freedom of religion is not something guaranteed to businesses.” Then her freedom of religion applies in her individual capacity.

            “No business has been lost.” Yet, I see two possible scenarios here 1)She keeps the business open and is further targeted by sodomites and the like to finish the job. 2)she closes voluntarily to avoid having to go through no. 1. Either way purveyors of a deviant lifestyle choice have ruined her life.

            <Then you have limited vision. She can choose to keep the business open and — hold on! She wasn't targeted and since there's no more Sodom there are no more Sodomites — live long and prosper.

            " And no feelings were hurt…" Then why the lawsuit? I'm sure there was other florists who could have catered to the debauchery celebration.

            <The fact that there are other florists is not proof, not even an indication, that feelings were hurt. The filing of a lawsuit is not indicative that feelings were hurt.

            "…but a law was broken." The First Amendment, and probably various sodomy laws.

            I hope you find the right deviant forum to comment in but for now you should try the Mid-Atlantic Leathermen site, it’s right up your alley (so to speak).

            <Thank for your well wishes. I'm a vegetarian so I'd have little in common with men who work with leather. I'm interested in legal issues and this is a current story dealing with an important topic. Your snark is as weak as your logic.

          • Bruce Morrow

            Paul they that be of the flesh do mind the things of the flesh. You just keep proving the Bible to be true with every word that comes out of your sinful heart.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It would be difficult to underestimate you, Gary. You have set the bar very low.

          • Oboehner

            “people who have broken no laws” What natural laws don’t count?

          • Paul Hiett

            Show me the law they broke. Real laws, mind you, and not the “laws” you like to cherry pick from the Bible.

          • Oboehner

            What natural laws don’t count?

          • Paul Hiett

            So you can’t link to a law they broke? Shouldn’t be that hard, the internet is full of web sites listing all of the laws…

          • Oboehner

            What natural laws don’t count?

          • Paul Hiett

            Why are you trying to equate a “natural law” to a real law? Are you incapable of finding an actual law they broke?

          • Oboehner

            What natural laws don’t count?

          • Paul Hiett

            Broken record eh? Can’t find any actual laws that they broke.

            Nice.

          • Oboehner

            Well let’s see… The Constitution trumps all and it gives religious freedom to everyone including business owners. It has been ruled that any “law” which doesn’t line up with said Constitution is null and void, why don’t you show me a law which doesn’t contradict the freedom of religion.
            Then explain to me who sought out whom in this case, I’m quite sure that if the mentally deranged perverts had not targeted this woman, there would have been no problem.

          • Paul Hiett

            A business advertises to the general public, indicating that their services are for sale. So, the business owner sought out the consumer, and by advertising, competed against other companies for the business. She then decided to break the law governing commerce in her state by discriminating against someone based on a protected status. No one may discriminate against another based on gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation. Believe it or not, those same laws protect you and her just the same.

          • Oboehner

            You still haven’t addressed the issue, just more worthless opinion.

          • Paul Hiett

            Everything I have stated is a fact, and is provable by the laws governing both commerce and discrimination in this country. Since this country does not follow the law of the Bible, the Bible, by default, becomes irrelevant in the discussion of law.

            So again, I ask you, what law did this customer break?

          • Oboehner

            What law that doesn’t contradict the Constitution did the business owner break?

          • Paul Hiett

            What part of “it’s illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation” do you not understand? That same laws also protects you and your religious beliefs. It protects men and women from gender discrimination. I really don’t think you have any clue how law works.

          • Oboehner

            Must be the part that’s not in the Constitution trumping religious beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where, exactly, do you think it’s legal to discriminate against others based on the protected statuses?

          • Oboehner

            I’m still waiting for the Constitutional law that states that one’s choice of activity trumps another’s religious freedoms.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Since the constitution does not contain laws, you’ll be waiting a long time. Just as you would be if you asked for the constitutional law that states that one’s religious freedoms trump public accommodation laws.

          • Oboehner

            “Since the constitution does not contain laws…” Like I said, you wouldn’t understand, but let’s just say this – the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, but there is no provision stating one has to accommodate someone else’s activity choice.

          • Badkey

            Your religion is nothing more than a behavioral choice. Again, fundy hypocrisy.

          • Oboehner

            Oh a marian, good luck with that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion”

            The First Amendment guarantees that the Federal government (and via the 14th amendment, the states) will not pass laws that prohibit the expression of religious belief. The First Amendment does not provide a protection that people are allowed to express their beliefs at any time, in any place, and in any way they care to.

            “but there is no provision stating one has to accommodate someone else’s activity choice.”

            Correct. Did you have a point?

          • Oboehner

            The woman in question was exercising her religious beliefs in her private place of business. The deviants who chose to engage in twisted sexual acts trampled on her beliefs simply because she didn’t agree with their activity choice. Now in addition to a loss of her money, she faces potential loss of her business unless she compromises her beliefs. What have the mentally challenged perverts lost? Nothing, they can still perform their disgusting acts of perversion.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The woman in question was exercising her religious beliefs in her private place of business.”

            It is a place of public accommodation. Again, please refer to United States v Lee and over 100 years of case law if you have questions about acting on religious beliefs in commerce.

            ” trampled on her beliefs simply because she didn’t agree with their activity choice.”

            They held your accountable to the law. Do you believe that an individual’s religious beliefs allow them to break the law?

            “Now in addition to a loss of her money”

            She has lost no money.

            “she faces potential loss of her business unless she compromises her beliefs.”

            Not true. She is free to close her business and she is free to no longer offer flowers for weddings. She is not required to compromise her beliefs.

            Oh, and speaking of her precious religious beliefs and her desire to not compromise them…….do you think that when a couple ordered flowers for a wedding that she inquired if either of the couple had been divorced for a reason other than infidelity and then refused if they had? Or if someone ordered flowers for an engagement party did she inquire if the couple were having sexual relations and then refuse the order if they were? Or if flowers were ordered for a baby shower, did she inquire if the mother-to-be was married, and if not refuse the order? Of if flowers were ordered for a child’s birthday party, did she inquire if the child was born out of wedlock and refuse if so? All of those things are examples of activities that are biblical sin.

            Surely, if her beliefs are so very precious to her and she is so adamant about not participating in an event that would celebrate something that is biblical sin, then she should be applying that across the board.

            Anything less is hypocritical.

          • Oboehner

            “Again, please refer to United States v Lee” I’m quite sure paying into Social Security isn’t the issue.
            Do you believe that an individual’s sexual perversion allows them to trample someone’s rights?
            “She has lost no money.” Legal fees, lost time at her business, $2001, but that’s not money.
            “She is free to close her business and she is free to no longer offer flowers for weddings.” She is NOT free to run her business in accordance with her religious beliefs, if she does she will be targeted time and again by perverts pushing their agenda until she is bankrupt.
            “She is not required to compromise her beliefs.” BS – “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.”

            Nice try tossing out the red herring of unsubstantiated accusations followed by a then asinine statement: Anything less is hypocritical.

            Bottom line – a woman’s religious beliefs have been trampled by two sodomites forcing her to accept their activity choice, period.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I’m quite sure “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” is.

            I’ll ask again: “Do you believe that an individual’s religious beliefs allow them to break the law?”

            “Do you believe that an individual’s sexual perversion allows them to trample someone’s rights?”

            No, I don’t. Nor is that what is at issue in this case.

            “Legal fees, lost time at her business, $2001, but that’s not money.”

            She has paid no legal fees nor fines. As for lost time at her business, that is a choice she made.

            “She is NOT free to run her business in accordance with her religious beliefs”

            She is as long as they she does so does not violate the law. If she held to the religious belief (as many do) that the Bible says the races should not mix and she thus turned away an interracial couple, should she not be held accountable for that illegal action?

            “if she does she will be targeted time and again by perverts pushing their agenda until she is bankrupt.”

            So you believe that holding people accountable to the law makes them a pervert?

            “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.”

            IF she decides to continue to offer flower arrangements for weddings. She is not required to do so. Thus, she is not required to compromise her beliefs.

            “Nice try tossing out the red herring of unsubstantiated accusations”

            I made no accusations.

            “followed by a then asinine statement: Anything less is hypocritical.”

            So you believe that applying her religious beliefs in one situation but not applying them in others is NOT hypocritical?

            “Bottom line – a woman’s religious beliefs have been trampled by two sodomites forcing her to accept their activity choice, period.”

            Since she still believes what she believed before, has no right to operate her business in ways that are contrary to the law, and still does not accept that same-gender marriage is right, your statement is clearly false. Period.

          • Oboehner

            “No, I don’t. Nor is that what is at issue in this case.” Get back to me when you get a clue as to the topic here. The topic is most certainly an individual’s sexual perversion allowing them to trample someone’s rights.
            A “law” has no authority to contradict the Constitution, thus null and void – period.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The topic is most certainly an individual’s sexual perversion allowing them to trample someone’s rights.”

            She has no right to operate her business outside of the law. The service requested was for a wedding. It had nothing to do with “sexual perversion”. Sexuality exists regardless of whether it is acted upon or not. Sexuality involves much more than sexual activity.

            Anti-discrimination laws have been ruled to not be violations of the constitution.

            Other than that – your comments were spot-on.

          • realitybetraysus

            one law does not cancel out the other. Both hold equal weight so a contest between right to sexual pref and right to religion would be a draw or no contest=no winner quit complaining and go home! Some states are already enacting laws to protect Christians or religious beliefs because homosexuals think that they can use the legal system as a weapon!

          • realitybetraysus

            the customer violated the business owner right to practise her religious belief without punishment! The homosexual is denying the business ower the right to pracitse her religion.

          • paddles57

            I find it strange that she had no problem taking his money on all the other occasions he shopped there, and it appears she knew his sexual orientation. I think that she just wanted to be a martyr for “the cause”. And perhaps she thought she would get more business by doing this.

          • realitybetraysus

            ” No one may discriminate against another based on gender, religion, race or sexual orientation. ” The only problem is that the sexual orientation in this case is discriminating against the woman’s religious belief so the demand for sexual preference can not be granted when it denies another’s religious preference. You are asking for a contradiction in law you can not grant homosexuals freedom of sex, when it violated another’s freedom of religion. AND NO ONE SEEMS TO GET IT! This is the same problem since Sodam and Gamorah the homosexuals are never content with equal rights, they want and demand to be more than equal. One right does not cancel out the other.

          • Oshtur

            Right and the first amendment protects the customer. What it does for this business owner is say they don’t have to offer anything for sale to the general public if they are compelled to religiously discriminate against some of them but if they do offer it for sale to the general public:

            “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.”

            Freedom of religion means you don’t have to sell anything you don’t want to, but if you do offer it for sale you have to do so under the same rules as everyone else.

          • Oboehner

            The First Amendment say nothing of protecting customers – fail, try again.

          • Oshtur

            Ok, step by step for the extremely slow:
            [in a world without any civil rights laws, just the first amendment]

            • Business offers widgets for sale to the general public.
            • Customer comes it to buy widget.
            • Business won’t sell to customer because they don’t like the belief-based usage they are going to use it for.
            • Customer sues
            • Judges asks business “why won’t you sell what you offered?”
            • Business replies “because their use is against my beliefs.”
            • Judge asks customer who says “my use for the widget is completely in accordance with my beliefs”
            • Judge can not take one citizens beliefs over another, there can’t even be a law that would allow it so judge must use other criteria for deciding case and that is by asking the question

            “Who started this business relationship?”

            Answer the business so the judge will side with the customer since if the business didn’t want to sell to them it shouldn’t have advertised to them in the first place.

            Simple.

          • Paul Hiett

            Very simple.

          • Gary

            Then allow the business to legally advertise a list of those with whom they don’t want to do business. Everyone is informed.

          • Oshtur

            No, they can’t make public offers with exclusions anymore than a business can put up a sign that says ‘no blacks’. If they want to use their freedom of association they must do so first by creating a private club, and then making the offer of sale only to them. Like the BSA, churches and such do.

          • Gary

            They could, if it was legal. And it should be. No one should be forced to do business with people they don’t want to do business with.

          • KenS

            So how does one get their business set up like a church, if they are not a church or private organization, what is the process, cause this sounds like the way to go for Christians to stay in business and not violate their beliefs.

          • Oboehner

            I get it now, sexual deviance trumps religious belief. If you owned a candy shop and a pedophile came in and asked for some candy to use as bait in his quest, you would gladly oblige, I see.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, you don’t get it. Neither sexual orientation nor religious belief trump each other. Both are protected statuses. A gay business owner can’t discriminate against your religious belief just as this lady can’t discriminate against sexual orientation.

            It’s really not that hard to understand these simple laws.

            Plus, your analogy is about as bad as it gets. If someone walked into a candy store and said they were buying candy to molest kids, a responsible owner would call the police, just as a gun store owner would if someone walked in and said they wanted a gun to shoot people with.

          • Oshtur

            I take it from the red herring you can’t actually respond to the step-by-step.

            I thought as much (oh the business owner can refuse to sell to a pedophile)

          • Oboehner

            I take it from your accusations that you think you can pick and choose which perversion gets protected.

          • Paul Hiett

            Unlike you wanting to discriminate against anyone that believes differently from your choice of religion.

          • Oboehner

            By shutting down their businesses? Oh wait, that’s you.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Religious belief is a perversion?

          • KenS

            You do know that some states do still have sodomy laws on the books, they just ignore them.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, they’re unconstitutional after Lawrence v. Texas. The states aren’t ignoring them, they’re unenforceable.

          • KenS

            I know they are unenforceable, I was just throwing it out there to make light of it, was not serious…

          • Bruce Morrow

            The Bible most clearly condemns homosexuality Paul. You are just too blind to see that truth. Homosexuality is still an ABOMINATION to God regardless what the government claims otherwise and Christians need and should take a firm stand against this abomination.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s fine, and you’re free to follow your version of your religions “laws”, but as soon as you infringe upon the rights of others, you break the laws of this country. Choose to do so, and suffer the consequences.

            Choosing a religion will never give you any special rights over another human being.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Not in any legal system that has relevance in the United States.

          • dark477

            no they don’t since they don’t exist

          • Oboehner

            Sure, that’s why in gay couples one takes the male role and the other the female. Take Ellen for example, she has that butch haircut and dresses like a man.

          • MisterPine

            Right, because stereotypes are always factual.

          • Oboehner

            Applying the label “stereotype” doesn’t change the facts.

          • MisterPine

            What facts? You haven’t presented any. This “role’ business above is done by some homosexuals but not all.

          • dark477

            she dress in the cloth she likes same as anyone. there is no male role or female role, it’s just two people living there lives together.

          • Oboehner

            Ahhh, sure. Dressing like a man makes her comfortable as she takes the male role.

          • dark477

            you don’t know what roles if any they take

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            What “natural laws” are you referring to?

          • Oboehner

            If I have to explain…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It’s not question of your having to explain, it’s a question of you being able to explain. Which, apparently, you are not. Oh well. Your inability renders your argument moot.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz……

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Obviously. If, when you wake up, you are find that you are able to explain what you are referring to by “natural laws”, let me know.

          • MisterPine

            Please do Oboehner because I have no idea what you’re talking about either. Like everyone else here.

          • Oboehner

            “I have no idea what you’re talking about…” Sounds like a personal problem.

          • MisterPine

            If it is, it’s a personal problem shared by a few people here who don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

          • Oboehner

            Then it would be personal problem(s).

          • MisterPine

            Most likely, you are unable to explain.

          • Oboehner

            To oversimplify it for your consumption would render it useless.

          • Bruce Morrow

            The only “intolerance” I keep seeing coming is from you Paul Hiett. Afterall what is in your heart comes out of your mouth Mr. I hate “White Christians”.

          • Paul Hiett

            How am I being intolerant when I support your right to believe what you want, and support the rights of everyone to be treated equally?

    • Gary

      The laws now favor the wicked over the righteous. We have to make our plans accordingly.

      • Bruce Morrow

        Isn’t that the TRUTH! Either you accept homosexuality as something to be celebrated or you pay the PRICE-in this lady’s case quite literally!!!!

        • Paul Hiett

          Let me rephrase that for you…

          Either you accept the laws that prevent discrimination, or you pay the price.

          That’s a much more realistic description.

          • Steve67

            Calling this discrimination is insulting to people who actually do suffer discrimination. Whether same-sex weddings are protected by such laws is not really the point. Those laws were never intended for self-absorbed douche-bags who want to file unnnecessary lawsuits against small-business owners who dare to have convictions that they don’t agree with. This lawsuit is clearly about punishing this woman. This gay couple is delighting in the misery of another and the real absuridty of this is that people like you, Paul Hiett, probably consider the business-owner hateful and the gay-couple heroes because, in their self-absorbed demand that everyone celebrate their lifestyle they have ruined this woman’s life. Whether the laws apply to them or not, this is bullying pure and simple, and in spite of what short-sighted people like you might think, pathetic lawsuits like this only serve to further divide and alienate and they do nothing to better society.

          • Oshtur

            Please, the cardinal case involved denial of a hotel room, here in Washington state the denial of sale of a Slurpee™ at a 7-11. Invidious discrimination comes in all sizes.

            And this woman has had two opportunities to get out of this basically scott free for the simple promise of obeying the law that in her case would just mean stop selling things she can’t sell without discriminating – wedding floral arrangements.

            She refused.

            This is just another prideful person pretending she isn’t basking in her 15 minutes of fame for just a bit longer. She doesn’t care that she is risking her employees futures, she doesn’t care that she is religiously discrimination against customers, she just doesn’t care, period.

            May she someday truly open herself to the Spirit and the Lord.

          • Guest

            So you’re just running around all over the internet, stalking this old lady. You are not a Christian. You have lied about who you are and what you stand for. You have a gay agenda and you brag about visiting Christian sites to harass posters over the gay issue. You need serious help, Scott.

          • Oshtur

            What’s pathetic is your stalking me in threads about this case because you realize I have the clear view on the issue and all you have is hysterics.

            And fighting for truth and Anerican principles is something I won’t apologize for.

            And again, my name isn’t Scott – you’ve sinned again. (I am curious where you got the name though – Doctor’s name on your bipolar medication?)

          • Guest

            I haven’t stalked anyone. I’ve merely commented on a subject I’m interested, only to find you blathering the same points on every site. No wonder most people ignore you. They can tell you’re a fraud.

          • Badkey

            It would be just as against the law to refuse to serve Christians because they, like Muslims who are also protected, have chosen to follow a hateful religion.

          • valerie mcnulty

            AMEN. Steve67!!! Well, SAID. I ‘AGREE’ with THIS Post!!! AMEN. ☆☆☆☆☆

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Calling this discrimination is insulting to people who actually do suffer discrimination.”

            How did they not actually suffer discrimination?

            “Those laws were never intended for self-absorbed douche-bags who want to file unnnecessary lawsuits against small-business owners who dare to have convictions that they don’t agree with.”

            So people who hold others accountable to the law are “douche-bags”? So then an interracial couple who are turned way because the business owner believes that the Bible says the races should not mix, would be “douche-bags” for filing a complaint against the owner?

            It’s not a question of HAVING convictions they don’t agree with. It’s a question of the way in which those convictions were acted upon.

            ” in their self-absorbed demand that everyone celebrate their lifestyle they have ruined this woman’s life.”

            Oh, please, spare me the hyperbole. She was not required to “celebrate their lifestyle” nor has this woman’s life been “ruined”.

            “Whether the laws apply to them or not, this is bullying pure and simple”

            So holding a business accountable to the law is “bullying”?

            “they do nothing to better society.”

            So you are against anti-discrimination laws and believe that not allowing discrimination does not better society, correct?

        • dark477

          the law requires that you don’t discriminate while ruining your business you don’t have to like it but you still have to do it.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “Either you accept homosexuality as something to be celebrated or you pay the PRICE”

          She is not required to “accept” homosexuality. She is required, when CHOOSING to operate a business, and CHOOSING to offer certain services, to do so according to the law.

          • Gary

            The law requires her to accept homosexuals in order to legally run her business. That is wrong.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The law requires her to accept homosexuals in order to legally run her business.”

            No, it does not. She is free to accept or not accept whatever she cares to. No one can be forced to accept something.

      • Badkey

        Gary, you call for the execution of gay citizens. You call that “righteous”?

        • Gary

          It was God’s idea to execute people for homos-xual s-x. Is God righteous?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are assuming that because something is written in the Bible that it is therefore certain that it was God’s idea.

            While you are certainly free to believe that, your belief does not translate into definitive fact.

          • Badkey

            Yours? No.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        The laws favor equal treatment, not discrimination based upon religious belief.

        • Gary

          Treating the wicked as you treat the righteous is immoral.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The government cannot force people to accept or associate with people against their will, nor does it.

            People are free to accept or not accept whatever they care to.

            Since no one is “forced” to own a business, no one can be “forced” to associate with people against their will.

    • Bruce Morrow

      You make very valid points! If you are a Christian you have NO rights in this so-called “land of the free”!

      • Paul Hiett

        Really? You have no rights? Tell me which of your rights have been taken from you since you made the choice to be a Christian?

        • Gary

          The right to freedom of association.

          • Paul Hiett

            Last I checked, you have that right. You can join or leave any association you want.

            Would you like to be wrong about another right you think was removed?

          • Gary

            If you are a business owner, you do not have freedom of association. You have to give that up in order to be in business.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not at all, and in fact “freedom of association” has nothing to do with a business owner refusing service to another human being based on discrimination of either gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, or race. Those laws protect everyone, which is a fact you seem incapable of grasping.

          • Oshtur

            The business chose to associate with the general public when it advertised to the general public – from that moment on it is too late to whip out a religious test the customer must pass – their own right to religious freedom shields them from such licentiousness.

          • Gary

            Then allow the business to say who they want to do business with, and who they don’t, up front. That way, everyone will know beforehand.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “This just goes to show that we really don’t have religious freedom in this country. ”

      Oh, please, spare me the false persecution complex. Religious freedom does not mean that you are allowed to enter into commerce and then do whatever you care to by citing your religious beliefs as the reason. People are free to hold to whatever belief they care to. Live their lives according to those beliefs. To suggest that we “really don’t have religious freedom in this country” is ridiculous. When you aren’t allowed to believe what you want and aren’t allowed to live your personal life according to your beliefs, then get back to me.

      “We are forced to commit all kinds of sin to placate those who see nothing wrong with sin.”

      Get over yourself. You are not “forced to commit all kinds of sin”. Opening a business is a choice. Offering certain services in your business is a choice. No one is “forced”.

      “It has become a society where right is wrong and wrong is right.”

      So what you believe is right, is right for everyone one and if it is something you believe to be wrong then it is wrong for everyone. You’re have quite a high opinion of your own opinions, don’t you? Perhaps we should check with you before allowing citizens to exercise their freedom and liberty just to make sure you think they way they want to do that is “right” and, if not, prohibit them doing it.

      “That freedom is being taken away every time a Christian is forced to do something against their beliefs”

      No one is “forced”.

      “She should close the florist shop and move it into her home and make it a a private business like the lady in Oregon did with her wedding cakes.”

      Regardless of where it operates, if it is a business of public accommodation, she is required to follow the law. Do you believe that Christians should be above the law?

      • Gary

        It is a bad law. It should be repealed. If not, then we have to find a way around it.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “It is a bad law”

          More accurately stated: It is your opinion that it is a bad law.

          “It should be repealed”

          So are you working on that, Gary?

          “If not, then we have to find a way around it.”

          Any ideas on that?

          • HarryKrentz

            This guy thinks that morality is a matter of opinion.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Since there is no common beliefs as to the totality of what is moral and what is not, personal views on morality are most certainly a matter of opinion.

          • HarryKrentz

            Beliefs equals morality, personal views equals morality. Killing gays is OK to “thoughtsfromflorida” as long as someone thinks it’s moral.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Killing gays is OK to “thoughtsfromflorida” as long as someone thinks it’s moral.”

            What is your basis for that statement?

          • HarryKrentz

            Opinion = moral. That’s your entire argument.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please cite where I have made that argument.

          • HarryKrentz

            Why? You’d just deny it, peckerbreath.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Try me.

          • HarryKrentz

            Pervert.

          • R.A.

            Are you not implying your opinion, i.e. your understanding of scripture, is moral?

          • HarryKrentz

            No.

          • R.A.

            Fascinating. Most people I meet on these sites do.

          • HarryKrentz

            Everyone’s understanding of morality is flawed. “Who is righteous? There is not even one”

          • R.A.

            I actually can agree with that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I know. That Gary is a piece of work. I’m glad you recognize that.

          • HarryKrentz

            And he’s intellectually dishonest, which is easy to believe since he thinks truth is a matter of opinion.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            That Gary’s is something, isn’t he?

          • HarryKrentz

            He’s a veritable Saint compared to scuzzy scum crawlers such as yourself.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “scuzzy scum crawlers” – that’s a good one!

          • HarryKrentz

            Yeah, very apt.

    • dark477

      you have freedom of religion you just can’t use religion to discriminate against others.

    • Oshtur

      Dale no one forced her to offer something to the public she wouldn’t sell to people of all beliefs, even those who’s include same-sex marriage.

      She made a mistake, could have paid the $2,001 and run her business as she is now – not offering wedding floral services. That she rejected the the solution that would have protected her assets, the jobs and well being of her employees, and allowed her to operate legally as her conscience dictates shows this is really about something else than her ‘conscience’. Pride, Mammon, glory at her 15 minutes in the media sun – I don’t know, but refusing to end this with her getting everything she said she wanted means she really doesn’t have much of a ‘conscience’ at all.

      maybe its not too late to change her mind.

  • Gary

    Those who have made the unjust laws will make more. At some point, it will become necessary to rebel and overthrow those who are infringing on our rights.

    • Paul Hiett

      Are you advocating, on this website, to over throw the government?

      • Gary

        It is an option. I hope it won’t be necessary.

        • Paul Hiett

          Too funny…I wonder if any administrators are seeing what you write.

          • Gary

            The Founding Fathers said the same thing. When the government becomes oppressive, it is the right of the citizens to replace it.

          • Paul Hiett

            And you don’t think Christianity, as a whole, is oppressive to homosexuals?

          • Gary

            I hope so.

          • Paul Hiett

            If your version of religion is true, I think you’re in for a rude awakening when you pass on.

          • Gary

            You are wrong. Again. How many times does this make?

          • Paul Hiett

            Sure…by all means, go on living life as though your deity embraces hate.

          • Gary

            When God puts you in Hell, will you say that God hates you?

          • Paul Hiett

            If the Bible is any indication of the type of being “God” is, I’d rather go to hell. After all, Lucifer never did anything wrong in the Bible.

          • Gary

            LOL! Then you will get what you want. And so will I.

          • Paul Hiett

            You do realize that you’re worshipping a being guilty of genocide, rape, murder, torture?

          • Gary

            God will certainly torture you. And I am sooooooooo looking forward to it. 🙂

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, I’m sure you are. Funny thing though…wishing death and torture on someone else. According to you, God knows your thoughts and your heart. Good luck explaining all that hate…

          • Gary

            I don’t have to wish death and torture on you. God will handle all of that. I just want to enjoy it.

          • Badkey

            Is that christian love, Gary? Is that how your Christ would act?

          • Gary

            Did you know it is Christ who will put you in Hell? When he does, will you think he loves you?

          • Badkey

            Why? How has anyone gay harmed you?

            Who did this to you?

  • Lesli Spice

    This is so wrong. Where is the leadership in the church? Paul Hiett, you are a troll, spare me your comments I am not interested, you post comments multiple times on every single news article on gay issues. Get a job.

    • Paul Hiett

      It’s ok to be jealous about my work situation, I don’t mind.

      That said, what does leadership in a church have to do with business owners following the law?

      I doubt you’ll respond, but you really should read up on the discrimination laws we have to protect our citizens. By the way, those same laws protect everyone. And isn’t that what we, as a nation, should be striving for? Equality across the board?

  • robertzaccour

    Whatever happened to property rights? I suppose at my party in a couple weeks that someone that’s not invited can take me to court.

    • Oshtur

      Assuming you’re serious that is the difference. You used your freedom of association to invite just certain people to come to your party, the business by advertising to the general public uses its freedom of association to invite everyone to the party. And once that invitation is made how that transaction proceeds is regulated, legally and constitutionally.

      • Paul Hiett

        It appears that many people have a hard time understanding the simple laws regarding commerce and discrimination.

      • robertzaccour

        Either way property rights get stepped on. And I’m sure you’ve seen the signs “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”.

        • Oshtur

          anyone but not for any reason in Washington state since 1949.

        • Paul Hiett

          Do you think that applies to race? Gender?

  • Badkey

    Is anyone gong to be surprised when some religious fanatic kills a gay person in the name of god?

    Will you be surprised when that old fanatic is named Gary?

    • Oboehner

      Is anyone surprised when two turd burglars repeatedly sodomize a young boy and then strangle him to death with his own underwear?
      I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone named Badkey.

      • Badkey

        Show us where I’ve condoned anything like that. If you can’t, you’re just another losing, lying, fundy.

        You are a powerful ally.

        • Oboehner

          Show us where Gary has done anything like that. If you can’t, you’re just another losing, lying, mary-worshiper.

          You are a powerful ally.

          • Badkey
          • Oboehner

            Gary killed someone?

          • MisterPine

            He wants to.

          • Oboehner

            You’re inside Gary’s head now, funny I think he said the same about you – I could be wrong though.

          • MisterPine

            Gary has created notoriety for himself with his inflammatory comments about gay people. You’d have to be blind to miss them.

          • Oboehner

            You inflammatory comments are ok then.

          • MisterPine

            That’s correct.

          • MisterPine

            So what does worshiping Mary have to do with any of this?

          • Oboehner

            Did you ask what being a “fundy” has anything to do with this?

          • MisterPine

            I don’t think I need to. I have you pretty much figured out now. Sodomy? Well, you’ll fight that tooth and nail and call it depraved and sick and use phrases like “turd burglar” – but not if it’s a straight couple doing it. Christianity? Yes, that’s where the good moral teachings come from. But not if you’re a Catholic.

            You’re a hypocrite first class.

          • Oboehner

            “but not if it’s a straight couple doing it.” Still desperately beating that dead horse? Let it rest in peace already.

          • MisterPine

            Fine, you claim that you’re still opposed to it if it’s a straight couple doing it. Why then are you only attacking homosexuals, or to use your lovely phrase “turd burglars”? Why do you continue to call homosexuals “sodomites” when you know very well sodomy is done mostly by straight people?

          • Oboehner

            This story is about gay sodomites not heterosexual ones, and YOU know full well that ALL gay men engage in sodomy.

          • MisterPine

            Despite the fact, already proven to you, that all gay men do NOT engage in sodomy. Want more proof?

            http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/not-all-gay-men-have-anal-sex

          • Oboehner

            For the novice…

          • MisterPine

            Made no impression whatsoever, huh?

          • Oboehner

            I didn’t bend over, so no.

          • MisterPine

            Whatever that is supposed to mean, it’s now got to be very apparent to you that you have been mistaken about male homosexuals. They don’t all engage in sodomy.

      • MisterPine

        “Turd burglars”. Such nice language from such a good Christian.

        I think you’ll find you’re mixing homosexuality up with pedophilia, since stories like this one only happen in your twisted mind.

        • Oboehner

          Sexual deviancy is sexual deviancy no matter how it’s wrapped up – pedophilia, incest, and homosexuality not withstanding, no mixing here.

          • MisterPine

            If the law determines something sexual is deviant, then I’ll go with that. Specifically if it involves the harm of minors, animals, etc. But in your case, the definition of “sexual deviancy” is so broad that no court of law is going to take you seriously. Carry on.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Good for her. If she believes that the ruling was incorrect, she should appeal it.

  • MisterPine

    The woman in this story totally looks like she used to be a man.

  • rj

    Can I refuse service at my business to Christians? Its against my belief

    • Oshtur

      And that is what they miss, if they somehow made it possible to religiously discriminate in a public offer there would be no way to close Pandora’s box and when they are refused, charged more, not hired, etc because they are Christian it will be far too late to take it all back.

  • Arnoldo Ferreira

    SUCK IT BIBLE HUGGERS! you are the Islamists of America! when you can’t see freedom of religion other than the guy who “died on the cross” as the true religion. You are the other extreme of the spectrum,