Christian Florist Ordered to Service ‘Gay Weddings,’ Pay $1,000 Fine to State Attorney General

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 has been ordered to pay a $1,000 fine to the state attorney general, an order that is stated to be “only the first punch” financially against the business owner.

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.

In January, 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. The ruling drew concerns that fines could consequently place Stutzman at risk of losing his business, home and/or bank accounts.

Last month, Eckstrom granted summary judgment to Stutzman’s opponents, agreeing that she had committed an act of discrimination. On Friday, he ordered her to pay $1,000 to Ferguson as a civil penalty, and reiterated his initial order that she service same-sex ceremonies.

“Defendants … are permanently enjoined and restrained from violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act by discriminating against any person because of their sexual orientation,” Eckstrom wrote.

“All goods, merchandise and services offered or sold to opposite sex couples shall be offered or sold on the same terms to same-sex couples, including but not limited to, goods, merchandise and services for weddings and commitment ceremonies,” he ordered.

But ADF says that Friday’s order is just the tip of the iceberg.

“Today’s judgment affirms the court’s earlier decision that Barronelle must pay a penalty for her faith and surrender her freedom and conscience,” said Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner in a statement. “The penalty and fees imposed today are only the first punch.”

“The ACLU, on behalf of the same-sex couple also suing Barronelle, has asked the court to award them penalties, fees, and costs, which will financially devastate Barronelle’s business and personal assets—including taking this 70-year old grandmother’s retirement and personal savings,” she explained further. “The message sent by the attorney general and the ACLU to the people of Washington is quite clear: surrender your religious liberty and free speech rights, or face personal and professional ruin.”


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
  • Reason2012

    The issue has been falsely phrased as “same-gender marriage” – this assumes there’s such a thing as “same – gender marriage to begin with”, which there is not.

    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) – you are fined up to $150,000 if you do not violate YOUR Christian beliefs and use your business to support sinful acts.

    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 false.

    Marriage was defined by God at the beginning. 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 – government never defined it and our government cannot start re-defining it now.

    (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 by violating their own religious beliefs is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined up to $150,000 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 legally 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. Same-gender marriages legally deny kids this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (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/

      It was Ekstrom who said last month that Stutzman personally was liable for the claims against her, placing both her business assets and her home and personal savings at risk.

      The judge ordered that the state and the homosexual plaintiffs, each of whom filed lawsuits, could collect damages and attorneys’ fees from Stutzman.

      “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.

      http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/judge-authorizes-personal-ruin-for-florist/

      http://christiannews.net/2015/02/19/christian-florist-found-guilty-of-discrimination-for-declining-gay-wedding-could-lose-home-life-savings/

      “I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.”

      http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

      Gay fashion icons “The Only Family Is the Traditional One”

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/gay-fashion-icons-dolce-gabbana-only-family-traditional-one

      ..While growing up she “ached every day for a dad.”

      “same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not.”

      http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/woman-raised-lesbian-couple-i-ached-every-day-dad

      • markinPDX

        Ok, let’s see if I can make this easy for you. You can BELIEVE whatever you like. You can even state your beliefs whenever, wherever and to whomever you like. But what is rightfully against the law is for those beliefs to be translated into actions which discriminate against people who do not share or live by your beliefs or who fall outside your boundaries of acceptability. If you open a business to the public, you are bound to serve the entire, law abiding, willing to pay public, not just those you deem worthy. Your religion is yours and there is no one keeping you from practicing it… in your home, in your church, wherever. If you feel that your conscience cannot abide the possibility of serving those who may not live by your rules, then you do have a simple option: close your business.

        • Joshua Tree

          Mercedes Benz is classist against me because I can’t afford to buy their vehicles. Oh well, I’ll stick with Subaru for now.

          Kind of weird how some people take discrimination so seriously even when not intended or circumstantial that it somehow trumps all other rights and reason.

          • Bill

            how much money you have isn’t a protected class. you really need to look up those laws before you make those stupid comparisons

        • Reason2012

          Hello. What’s against the law is for government to redefine religious institutions it never defined to begin with, pass laws to establish this new state religion, then criminalize all those who will not violate their OWN religious beliefs when it comes to going against this new unconstitutional state religion. And in the end, it’s God we’ll have to convince – no matter how many laws we pass pretending we made a new religion or made it ok to kill_our sons/daughters as long as they’re still in the womb.

      • Taussig

        stop with the ridiculous spamming already! I’ve read this same post too many times. pathetic

    • MisterPine

      Yes there is such a thing as same-gender marriage. Holding your breath until your face turns blue won’t change that either.

    • Parque_Hundido

      No. You’re wrong on every single point, but I’ll respond to only one: whatever you claim about your jesus has no impact on our civil law. None. Get over it.

  • Frank

    Stand your ground. Stand for Jesus. Lord God, Creator, please bless and keep this grandma. Through all of this save many souls, most especially the people attacking her. May the blood of Jesus be upon all. In Jesus Mighty Holy Name may this be done. Amen.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Breaking the law has consequences. No surprise there.

    • Crysostomos Haloftis

      Law? What….law…? Oh you mean a law that some beurocrats pulled out of their asses…I see your point. I will pray for you. A man makes up a rule in a country that is no older than my great great grandmother and call it a “law”…lol that’s funny. I do not obey laws you know….the laws obey me. In fact I can do what ever I want to. No law is going to tell me how to live my life because these rules came from a person or group of idiots…..so there’s your so-called law….lol

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Good for you, doing whatever you want.

      • MisterPine

        “I will pray for you” is code for “I will go sulk in the corner because common sense and human rights are trumping Christian hate.”

      • Bill

        then you’ll go to prison were you will be raped and beaten.

      • Oshtur Vishanti

        You obviously aren’t from Washington. The civil rights were passed by properly elected legislatures AND citizens and the state constitution says that religious conscience is NOT an excuse to act regardless of the rights of others.

        You can’t offer something according to the law requires, don’t offer it at all. Simple solution, the same one the owner of Arlene’s Flowers LLC has pursued. The no longer offer wedding floral services to anyone.

  • SFBruce

    It doesn’t matter if you’re a 70-year-old grandmother, nor how “politely” one discriminates, when you break the law, there are consequences. It’s too bad Ms. Stutzman didn’t have better representation; as the article points out, she could have avoided this lawsuit.

  • Sweetpea

    Stand your ground we are all praying for you & God will always prevail. Lord I pray that you will handle this situation & protect this Grammy & her family. In Jesus name Amen.

  • Covered California

    It’s weird how people think they can just not serve someone because of how they FEEL about that person. Imagine if ALL business did that.

  • Covered California

    There are many religions, and heck you can even make up your own religion… And say your religion won’t partake in black weddings, you would be protected. Is ir really a bug deal to make a cake? Youre not getting married! And stop with the “blacks don’t choose their race” as if segregation never existed. It was not that long ago.

    • Joshua Tree

      Is it really a big deal to go to another bakery and not try to ruin some good folks lives over it?

      • Bill

        Why did Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat when she could of just moved to another one?

        • Joshua Tree

          Because it was a municipal bus. Not a private bakery.

          Besides it’s laughable to compare the black civil rights movement with the LGBT movement to shove their culture down the throats of would-be non-participants.

          • Peter Leh

            Is it also not laughable that one cannot see the correlation of white southern christians prohibiting equal protection to american citizens in the black community in the south and those same christians again in 2015 being on the wrong side of history prohibiting equal protection to american citizens in the homosexual community?

            BTW the diners where the blacks could not sit were forced by the government to serve blacks even though they were “private”. 🙂

            BTW a business is not “private” to the government being “public”. not an accurate comparison on your part.

          • Joshua Tree

            How do homosexuals not already have equal protection? Sounds like they want special rights above and beyond everyone else if I’m forced to bake a cake endorsing gay marriage against my religion (also against my notion of common sense).

            Then again if you don’t see a difference between being born black and choosing an “alternative” lifestyle… we can probably find some Juggalos who claim they were born listening to Insane Clown Posse and deserve to be a special protected class.

            Glad I’m not black.. I think then I’d *really* take exception with the idea of equating the progressive LGBT movement with the civil rights movement.

          • Peter Leh

            “Then again if you don’t see a difference between being born black and choosing an “alternative” lifestyle.”

            i see a huge difference. as i stated this is an equal protection issue not a race issue.

            the reason we have equal protection laws is because when those in power were given a chance they could not behave.

            “How do homosexuals not already have equal protection?”

            if they are being denied service for being gay then i would say.. not yet

          • Joshua Tree

            And they should not be denied service for being gay. However if that “service” includes participation or otherwise endorsing something that the business owner deems as either immoral, distasteful, or against belief.. that goes too far. And that’s also a topic covered clearly under the 1st Amendment.

          • Peter Leh

            “participation or otherwise endorsing something that the business owner
            deems as either immoral, distasteful, or against belief.. that goes too
            far”

            The good news is no one but the business owner him or herself can do that. Any citation from the government is only enforcing what the business owner agreed to. Hence the citation given to arlene’s flowers.

            Believe me when i say the state does not wish to zapp or zing the main source of tax revenue ( businesses). The state gives every opportunity for compliance and/or restructuring of services when new regulations come down the pike.

            This lady’s first amendment right is and has always been intact as a citizen. Notice SHE is not being cited as a citizen but her BUSINESS is being cited. WHY? Because of how the business is registered with the state. But her violation is on her as she is the one to agree in the first place. She had every opportunity to change AND protect herself. Just like every other business has and done.

            This BUS 101. 🙂

          • Joshua Tree

            Ok I understand that. Appreciate the civil discourse. I guess for people like me where it’s a small family business, only a couple employees, this hits a little close to home. I’m a web developer. We routinely choose which clients to work with because we are able to turn away work. Several of my clients are gay and it makes no difference to me. But the day someone asks me to build them a website for a gay wedding I’ll say no. I also won’t be promoting a gay pride festival. I don’t think sexuality should be an issue that falls in the category of “pride” regardless of what it is. Unfortunately if I am going to avoid hot water, I’ll have to turn the job away for some nondescript reason.

            The way things are right now it’s murky and for some types of business it can get really murky. So I support the Religious Freedom laws because they keep families from losing everything over having to face a choice weather to follow God or follow a law that is contrary to God.

          • Peter Leh

            “I’ll have to turn the job away for some nondescript reason.”

            many do.

            “The way things are right now it’s murky and for some types of business
            it can get really murky. So I support the Religious Freedom laws because
            they keep families from losing everything over having to face a choice
            weather to follow God or follow a law that is contrary to God.”

            IMO religious freedom laws are just window dressing for political grandstanding. They know good and well it will get votes and when the laws are over turned (because they will) there will be more politcal grandstanding and more voted to protutes us christians from the “meanes”. ALL the while they know there are already laws on the books that already protect religious freedom. on a smaller scale the ADF and the lawyer Waggoner know good and well she is dead in the water but to stop and do the right thing for their client would cost the ADF $$$ in contributions from inflamed donors. Waggoner did not get fined for poor legal advise… Stutzman did!

            of course you now know you have plenty of options in your service offered to the public but you need to MAKE SURE what you are doing is legal. Dan Cathy has done it. Hobby Lobby has. I have. so can you! 🙂

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Freedom laws because they keep families from losing everything over having to face a choice weather to follow God or follow a law that is contrary to God.”

            There are a couple of other choices that individuals have. They do not have to choose to operate a business, and they do not have to choose to offer products which would require them to violate their religious beliefs.

            It is doubtful that Religious Freedom (what a bogus name) laws will have any impact. They all state “unduly burden”. Anti-discrimination laws have been found to not unduly burden the expression of religious belief. These laws are mostly for show and for conservatives to pander to some of their constituents.

          • Joshua Tree

            Yeah that’s reasonable. Just go out of business because your views aren’t popular with the fabian socialists. Religious Freedom IS a bogus name because in this country this should not even be up for debate!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Go out of business? Why would anyone have to go out of business?

            It’s not a question of popularity of viewpoint – it’s a question of the laws that are in place either by a vote of the public or their elected representatives.

            This has been up for debate ever since the Civil Rights Act. At that time many protested for religious exemptions regarding serving blacks. When interracial marriage laws were struck down, many protested for religious exemptions regarding serving interracial couples.

            Why in the world would you think that allowing discrimination based solely upon religious belief should “not even be up for debate”? Do you have some type of misunderstanding regarding constitutional protections regarding religion?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So then if a person believed that the Bible says that the races shouldn’t mix, that person should be free to turn away an interracial couple, correct? Or if the owner believed that any wedding not done in a Christian church before the Christian god was wrong, then it would be fine to turn away all other customers, correct? If a person believed that only people of the same faith should marry, then it would be fine to turn away a couple where one was Hindu and the other Jewish, correct?

            Since “sincerely held religious beliefs” are completely subjective, where would the lines be drawn?

          • Joshua Tree

            I’m in an interracial relationship. I’d go find another place to spend my money. Then again I don’t have the mentality that I’m entitled to service just because.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The question wasn’t what you would do – the question was whether it is acceptable for businesses to turn customers in the scenarios I presented, as well as where the line would be drawn.

          • Joshua Tree

            Show me that examples like that are an actual problem beyond your flexing your imagination.

            Because Religious Freedom laws have been shown to aid people of all walks and persuasions.

            http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/meet-10-americans-helped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Show me that examples like that are an actual problem beyond ”

            There aren’t many…..BECAUSE THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST IT. Duh.

            I’ll ask again:

            Is it acceptable for businesses to turn customers in the scenarios I presented, as well as where should the line be drawn?

            If you are going to determine policy/law, you have to think through all the scenarios. To justify a law based on a single scenario, and dismiss others without consideration, is simpleminded. Unless, of course, you want to craft a law that says it is OK to use religious beliefs as a basis for not serving gay people, but not OK to apply to anyone else.

            I wonder if this florist, when asked to do a wedding for a heterosexual couple, asks if either of the couple has been divorced for reasons other than adultery, and turns them away if they have. I wonder if, when asked to do flowers for a baby shower, she asks if the mother-to-be is married, and turns away the order if she is not. I wonder if, when asked to do flowers for an engagement party, she inquires if the couple are having sexual relations, and turns down the order if they are.

            If not violating her religious beliefs is so very important to her, surely she must make these inquiries, yes?

          • Joshua Tree

            You seem to have mistaken me for someone who wants to play 20 questions with you.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Actually, it seems that I have mistaken you for someone who has the mental capacity to defend his statements. My bad.

          • Joshua Tree

            Prior to your arrival I was seeing some interesting discussion. You came in with ALL CAPS, insults, straw man arguments, drawing absurd equivalencies, demanding I bend to your narrative and answer a series of questions designed to trap me into some imaginary category so you can cry “BIGOT!”

            Sorry homie I don’t play that game no mo.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Of my 4 responses to you, there were a total of 5 words in all caps. Further, I did not “come in” with them, as they were not used until my 4th response. Nor did I come in with insults, unlike the jab you took at me in your very first response to me. Are you really throwing those out as reasons for not responding to basic questions about your positions?

            In what way have I insulted you?

            What “straw man arguments” have I presented?

            What equivalences did I present that were “absurd” and on what basis have you determined they are “absurd”?

            I have made no demand that you bend to anything, nor am I attempting to trap you. You presented the arguments. I asked you logical questions based upon your arguments. If you feel that the answers to those questions somehow “trap” you, perhaps that is a sign you should rethink your arguments.

            You certainly have not provided me with any reason to label you as a bigot. That is a descriptive term I seldom use, as it is seldom applicable.

            “Sorry homie I don’t play that game no mo.”

            If you view answering logical questions about the arguments you presented and being able to explain how you would apply your views as to how things should be handled to more than one situation as “a game”, you are certainly entitled to that. It seems, though, to be more of an excuse than anything else.

          • Joshua Tree

            Congrats you win

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Unfortunate that’s all you have. But, it is what it is.

          • Bill

            Why? both are groups that have been marginalized by the majority, both have been denied rights and both have had laws passes designed specifically to hurt them

          • Bill

            they’re both groups that have been marginalized by the majority

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        Yeah – good point – the coloreds should do that as well. And the Jews, and the Kikes, and the Japs, and the Mooslums.

        • Joshua Tree

          They should be forced to pretend that 2 men or 2 women have a marriage and lose their business for not baking that cake, just like some Christians?

          Well now I don’t agree with that either. Unless you meant something else by that string of ethnic slurs.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Oh goodness no – you misunderstood me. I was going off of what you said – the Jews, and the Kikes, and the Japs, and the Mooslums, should just go somewhere else and not worry about the fact that someone broke the law by turning them away.

            Like, for instance, if an interracial couple were on a road trip through Mississippi and turned off to check into a motel and the owner told them he doesn’t rent to interracial couples. They should just turn around, get back in their car, and go to the next motel. Of course, if the next motel says the same thing, they should just get back in their car and go to the next one. Eventually, they can just sleep in their car. No reason to complain, right?

            Oh, Jewish and Muslim are not ethnic groups.

          • Joshua Tree

            You have too much time to think weird racist scenarios over in your head. Again with the ethnic slurs. Surreal how you think you’re making any kind of convincing argument.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            All it takes is a basic understanding of history.

          • KenS

            What I do not understand here is how in the world has sexual orientation (a choice) become a protected class like race, gender, (etc.) which is decided in your DNA

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I’m not sure where you have come up with the belief that sexual orientation is a choice, but there is no evidence to support that belief.

            Religious belief is a choice and is a protected status. Should that be removed?

          • KenS

            Religious belief is not a status, it is a right. there is a difference. To be a status, it has to be established that you are born with that status, i.e. male, female, black, white, Chinese, etc. Religious belief is a choice and we have been given a right to believe the way we want, you are comparing apples to oranges here.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Religious belief is a protected status. No, a status does not require that a citizen be born a certain way. Women who are pregnant have protected status. Women are not born pregnant. If you have questions about that, please refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

            In addition to being a protected status, religious belief is also a choice.

            The right to believe is not explicitly stated. Rather, like most of our “rights” it is assumed. It is also a right to be homosexual.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No, no, no. Religion is a status, just the same as others that are protected under civil rights statutes. You cannot acquire special rights just by wishing for them or imagining legal situations that don’t exist except in your head.

  • AmandaJS

    Whatever happened to declining service to anyone you want. It is her right. I notice the gay activists are only targeting Christian business’s and leaving the Muslims alone. I wonder why? Sickening how the state of Washington is treating this elderly lady.

    • Jkhur

      Dear lord. First there is no such “right” to decline service to anyone you want. Second, there was a very clear and unambiguous law that she agreed to follow when she opened her business and she didn’t. Third, how many Muslim bakeries do you think are out there? Muslims represent maybe 1% of the population of this country.

      • KenS

        Hello, I believe this law came into effect after she had opened her business, especially the part about sexual orientation being a protected class!

        • Jkhur

          Irrelevant. By continuing to operate her business she agreed to follow all relevant law. She does not get to ignore subsequent changes to those laws.

          • KenS

            I realize that, i was merely pointing out your error of saying she agreed to the law when she opened the business. Your wording was wrong.

          • Jkhur

            Washington’s public accommodation law was passed in 1957. Arlene’s Flowers opened in 1964 (although I have no idea what Barbara’s role was at that time). Not that it matters since regardless of when the law was passed she agreed to abide by it and all other relevant laws when she continued to operate her business. Sexual orientation was added in 2006. She had plenty of years to get used to the idea of having to serve people regardless of their sexual orientation before this incident, and in fact she did. Unfortunately for her, you don’t get to occasionally deny service.

    • Frank

      No doubt. It’s not like they are real marriages anyways.

      • MisterPine

        Too bad the law disagrees with you.

        • Frank

          The law is irrelevant to reality

          • MisterPine

            Oh now, WHY doesn’t it surprise me that a Christian fundamentalist would think he was above the law? Tell you what, go ahead and break the law sometime and just watch what it does to your “reality”.

          • Taussig

            typical of christians to think that their bible gives them a get out of jail free card

      • Bill

        it’s considered legally valid in the eyes of the state that makes it real.

        • Frank

          No it doesn’t it just makes all people that call it real, something that is not pleasant.

          • Bill

            if a church says a marriage is valid but the government doesn’t then it isn’t seen as legally valid by anyone. the reverse isn’t so.

        • Joshua Tree

          considered an abomination in the eyes of God, that makes it an abomination

          • Bill

            only to idiots like you

          • Bill

            no just to you

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        If they aren’t real marriages, then it really shouldn’t matter, should it?

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “Whatever happened to declining service to anyone you want. ”

      It ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. That’s why you no longer see signs, like you used to, that read: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

      ” notice the gay activists are only targeting Christian business’s”

      Targeting it what way? Are you aware of Muslim-owned florist businesses in Washington?

      • KenS

        Really, I was born in 1971, and I saw those signs growing up in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Correct me if I am wrong, but those years are after the year 1964

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          That you may have seen them, doesn’t mean they were legally accurate.

    • Parque_Hundido

      That has been illegal since the1960s. Where have you been?

  • Norbert Okumu

    Time has come to stand for Christ, no matter what the laws of the Land say. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to worship the image of king Nebuchadnezzar, they were thrown into the fiery furnace but God saved them. As for America, her judgement from God is just hanging over her

  • robertzaccour

    So much for property rights.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      How so?

  • MissMicki

    I’ve been praying for this dear lady since this mess started. This is a case of the state discriminating against Christians. May The Lord bless her abundantly and strengthen her for the fight that’s ahead. Those who are fighting against her are fighting satans battle. We all know how it ends, satan and all who love and follow him burn for eternity. Servants of Jesus gain eternal life, joy, peace and blessings. Don’t be on the wrong side in the battle between darkness and light, light always overcomes darkness.

    • Bill

      it’s not discrimination. the laws apply to everyone.

      • webshade

        It is discrimination! The state is discriminating (making a distinction) against the Christian florist and in favor of the state since no person made a formal complaint of discrimination.
        The Christian florist discriminated against the homosexual customer making a moral judgment not based on his homosexuality but based on what she knew to be wrong in that what was requested of her could be taken as approval and participation of a homosexual wedding herself and decided not to go against her own conscience in the matter. This is consistent with the first amendment and freedom of religion. No laws were broken here!

        • Bill

          business owners don’t get to make “moral judgments” they only have to follow the law and I suggest you look up the legal definition of discrimination because what the goverment is doing isn’t discimitory in any way.

          • webshade

            Making a distinction is discrimination bill! Check a dictionary. Business owners are people bill and they do and can make moral judgments (they discriminate between right and wrong) the same as you . The nature of law is discriminatory. the state makes law bill, they are discriminating.

          • Bill

            there’s lawful and unlawful discrimination and what the florist did was unlawful.

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            No, what the florist did was not unlawful. The problem lies in the fact that you and yours are too dense to recognize the difference between discrimination against a person and discrimination against a behavior.

            On top of that, you and yours are so devious that you take particularly warped delight in twisting the law to mean that persons who conscientiously object to your deviance are forced into participating in the appearance of their forced agreement with your deviance while they do not agree.

            Hence, the term: homonazis.

            Congratulations Bill!

            You earned it!

            Due to your ignorance, perversion and deviance, you are part of the gaystapo. -That deviant bunch that was never satisfied with mere tolerance or ‘live and let live’, but rather had to go way beyond that to force its deviance down everyone elses’ throats; strong arming the law to make everyone else dance the qweeer dance of materially supporting your deviance whether they like it or not.

          • Bill

            if she was punished then what she did was clearly unlawful. and behavior is also protected since you also cannot discriminate against someone because of their CHOICE of religion

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            It would be nice to assume that the judges get it right, however, in this case they are all caught up in the politics of the homonazis. Someday the judges will realize the wisdom of Matt Walsh, if they ever wake up from their leftist propaganda induced delirium:

            http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/sorry-gays-you-dont-have-the-right-to-be-free-from-discrimination/

            Wake up and smell the reality of freedom of association!

          • Bill

            she broke the law, whether the judges agree with that law or not is irrelevant. and that article is dead wrong. everyone including homosexuals has the right to be free of discrimination and it’s been that way since 1964

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            No, actually she didn’t.

            If you could boost your reading comprehension on the subject a bit, you would realize that she had served the same customer before with no discrimination against his person. When he asked for her to grant her tacit approval of his *gay wedding* by actively supplying it, she went with her principled stance and did not limit the customer from getting his goods somewhere else.

            If you were able to apply some small modicum of intelligence to the issue, you would admit that there is a difference between discriminating against a person and discriminating against a behavior, which we all do and which the government has no mandate or ability to limit.

            http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/sorry-gays-you-dont-have-the-right-to-be-free-from-discrimination/

          • Bill

            there is no difference and it doesn’t matter that she served them before she still discriminated against them and must be punished.

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            There is a difference and it does matter that she made the distinction in her actions; the ones who must be punished are the homonazis.

            Wait for it.

          • Bill

            no gonna happen. she broke the law and was punished

          • Eponymous1

            I don’t know how you could be clearer.

            That the left REFUSES to see these obvious distinctions can only be because they don’t WANT to. They want us to endorse the behavior, while pretending objecting to the behavior is unlawful discrimination against a person.

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            We seem to be running into more and more intractably bent minds. Sad.

          • Eponymous1

            The word “left” is believed to have etymological roots in “twisted” and “bent.” https://books.google.com/books?id=_m7k1Oi-cakC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=bent+etymology&source=bl&ots=ew9dBELqZr&sig=8BzH93BfpYwvyR_CQ10chE_j-9k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PygsVY-kOISuggTS3ILoAg&ved=0CH8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=bent%20etymology&f=false

            Historically, the left side, and subsequently left-handedness, was considered negative in many cultures. The Latin word sinistra originally meant “left” but took on meanings of “evil” or “unlucky” by the Classical Latin era, and this double meaning survives in European derivatives of Latin, and in the English word “sinister”.

            Meanings gradually developed from use of these terms in the ancient languages. In many modern European languages, including English, the word for the direction “right” also means “correct” or “proper”, and also stands for authority and justice.

            So yes, intractably bent minds, left behind…

          • Doctor Hook

            No, it has most certainly NOT “been that way since 1964,” Twinkletoes. Your lifestyle choice is not mentioned anywhere in federal civil-rights law, and you cannot create a civil right where none exists merely by wishing it were so.

          • Bill

            the civil rights act made it so businesses couldn’t discriminate even if it went against their religion. and sexual orientation is a protected class in a few states

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “they do and can make moral judgments”

            Agreed. They are not, however, allowed to apply those moral judgements in ways which violate the law.

            “the state makes law bill, they are discriminating.”

            In what way is the state discriminating against certain individuals?

          • Eponymous1

            So in your view the price of any economic activity is that everyone has to check their faith at the door?

          • Bill

            yes. if you open a business you agree to follow the law and that includes anti-discrimination. laws. it’s about time you pigs learned this

          • Eponymous1

            Anti-discrimination laws don’t trump the first amendment. Especially when what you’re objecting to is forced participation an event that celebrates a disordered behavior.

          • Bill
          • Paul

            So what?
            Were does the court get the authorization to modify the second amendment?

          • Bill

            it’s kind of their job to determine if a law is in line with the Constitution.

          • Paul

            But that wasn’t my question. More to the point. Article 3, section 2 of the constitution does not authorize the revision of the constitution. That power is contained solely within Article 5.

            So, how can requiring someones speech as in a wedding chapel owner or requiring someones association as in a wedding photographer not abridge the right of free speech or free association? how can a law be lawful that abridges when that abridgement is prohibited?

          • Bill

            because it doesn’t violate those things.

          • Paul

            Yes, it does. If someones speech is required, it is not free, if someones association is required,it is not free. The freedom to not speak and not associate is wholly conctained with the freedom of speech and the freedom of association.

          • Bill

            look up what freedom of association means and freedom of speech doesn’t apply here.

          • Paul

            Look it up? You want me to consult Google on the validity of the first amendment? What are you talking about? It is the first amendment. I believe I have an accurate copy.

          • Bill

            read up on the legal definition of freedom of association.

          • Paul

            I did, from the original source.

          • infadelicious

            Paul, it makes sense to check Google for an accurate “version” of the first amendment. especially since we know liberals get the news and facts and “stuff” from Jon Stewart and that MSNBC chick that wears tampons for earrings. It’s gotta be true.

          • Paul

            I swear, this logic loop defense is so utterly false on the face of it.

            That the court can redefine the terms of the Constitution but this isn’t amending because the court has ruled it is not, by the interpreted powers of article 3 section 2 as interpreted. This Emperor has no clothes.

          • infadelicious

            liberals love to “interpret” things anew don’t they? Their dictionary and their Constitution are completely different than everyone else’s.

          • Eponymous1

            They’re busily update everyone’s copies though. Be sure to hang onto unabridged versions of your own…

          • Eponymous1

            The Emperor has no clue…

          • Paul

            Don’t mistake them for the simple, incompetent or clueless. They are deceitful in their willful ignorance.

          • Eponymous1

            I was just talking about Emperor Zero, here.

          • Paul

            They have a full cadre of idiots to carry the flag. I call them cannon fodder.

          • Eponymous1

            ” I believe I have an accurate copy.”

            Hang onto it. The Winston Smiths of the world are busily at work across all electronic media flushing facts, like the actual, real definition of marriage, US history and everything else down the memory hole.

            I have a big, old dictionary, and a lot of history books, and they’re worth their weight in gold now. I’ve noticed google results that cut against the “narrative” tend to drop off the map pretty quickly now.

          • Paul

            Unfortunately, if they can divert us to their wiki’s and expert interpretations rather than original sources they will have succeeded in re-writing our existence. They don’t have to touch those originals yet, they can put that off until we lose the meaning of what we authorized them to do and turn it to what we are authorized by them to do. Sadly, for many of our brothers and sisters this has already happened. We can’t save our selves until we can save them.

          • Eponymous1

            Rule by the government approved and officially credentialed.

            We can’t even accept the obvious facts of human biology without someone demanding a “study” or presenting some junk science purporting to prove manifest falsehoods. It’s the triumph of the public school system, blocking out primary sources in favor of educrat textbooks, and inculcating subservience to groupthink.

        • Parque_Hundido

          She broke the law. Her motive was greed. She’s guilty. This case is so clear that the ruling was given in summary judgment.

          There aren’t any legal controversies here.

          • webshade

            The only motives I ascribe to her is what she has already said in news reports. You cannot ascribe to her what isn’t there. Except in your mind.

          • Parque_Hundido

            The facts of the case do not support your view. If she had moral objections to providing her services to the public, she could have limited the services she offered. That would have solved the moral problem, but it would have cost her money.

            Instead, she chose to violate the law. For that, she is being justly punished.

          • Theresa Easley

            She is not being justly punished. The homos will be justly punished, though, and I wouldn’t want to be them then.

          • Taussig

            she broke the laws of the state and she is being punished as anyone would be for doing the same thing

          • Parque_Hundido

            I have no idea what you’re saying. Ms. Stutzman broke the law, the two men who were the victims of her unlawful act are the victims here.

          • ShadowGod

            Clueless idiot. Go straight to Hell.

          • Theresa Easley

            How was her motive greed when she could lose everything? It is the homosexuals that are the greedy ones.

          • Taussig

            because they want to be treated equally?

          • Parque_Hundido

            Greed. She could have limited the services that she offered to the public. That would have solved her “moral” problem and kept her business practices within the law. She chose not to do this because doing so would have cost her money.

            Add to this the legal work of the ADF and you have a recipe for disaster. The ADF litigates cases based on their marketing value. The regularly advise clients to take actions that are not in their best interests. That seems to be what’s happening here.

          • Jason Smith

            Greed? She turned down business (money) because of her beliefs. If it were just about money, she would have taken the business.

            There used to be signs up that said “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.”

            I don’t do repairs for the druggies in my area. I know who they are and I don’t like them. Am I in violation of the law?

            So be it……………

          • Peter Leh

            druggies are not a protected class.

          • Jason Smith

            Neither are white Christians……………….

          • Peter Leh

            of course we are. Are you a whiner? 🙂

          • Jason Smith

            Would it do me any good to whine? No. I just have to suck it up, pay my taxes and make sure not to offend any who are deemed worthy of special treatment.

            While I’m OK with someone choosing their own “lifestyle”, I’ll be damned if that “lifestyle ” is swung in my granddaughters face at a parade.

            Today there are places on campus where whites aren’t allowed. How is that not discrimination? How is that inclusive?

            “Sure you can support us, Mr Smith.”

            “Now stand over there, hold this sign and be quiet”…………….

          • Peter Leh

            For some reason CNN did not post my response ill try it again:

          • Eponymous1

            But buggerers are. What a strange world we live in.

          • Parque_Hundido

            That sign is illegal. If you offer services to the public, you cannot pick and choose. I hope someone sues you.

          • Jason Smith

            It will only be the drug dealers and users. I think I am safe. That is unless an overzealous public official decides to prosecute me without a complaint. But, this is Texas, so I am probably safe. We don’t normally put up with whiny crybabies here…………..

          • Parque_Hundido

            Not if you live in one of the few pockets of civilization in that God-awful state. If you live in Travis or Harris county, you’ll be prosecuted. Other parts of the state aren’t as important.

          • Buttercream Princess

            How was it greed? She turned down business (business means extra money if you didn’t know) to stand up for her beliefs. I support her.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Greed because the legal answer to her problem would be to cease offering wedding services at all. This was a deliberate act of discrimination. She deserves to be punished.

          • Peter Leh

            probably not greed as in money. perhaps religious greed?

          • Eponymous1

            The science is settled. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Move along, nothing to see here.

          • Parque_Hundido

            you need me to frame this as the sort of fairy tale you’re accustomed to?

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “but based on what she knew to be wrong in that what was requested of her could be taken as approval and participation of a homosexual wedding herself and decided not to go against her own conscience in the matter. This is consistent with the first amendment and freedom of religion.”

          There is nothing in the first amendment that protects such actions.

          • Eponymous1

            Except for the explicit freedoms of speech and religious exercise, you’re totally right.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            There is no “freedom of religious exercise” included in the constitution. Nor does freedom of speech mean that you are allowed to say anything you want, in any location you want, at any time you want. There are restrictions.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof […].”
            – First Article of Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please note the word “prohibiting”. That means that the government cannot, for example, say that it is illegal to practice Islam. It does NOT mean that there can not be restrictions on free exercise.

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            The same Constitution recognizes our freedom of association.

            Why don’t you?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I do, BGYB. Why don’t you?
            Business owners who do not wish to provide their services/products to SS counterfeit so-called “weddings” are also exercising their right to freely associate, as well as their rights to freely contract and exercise their religions.

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            I do, and it looks like we have an understanding.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Okay. Why did you ask in the first place, then?

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            It seems that the wisdom currently developing in this argument is recognizing that our antagonists have already made it clear that they don’t give a furry rodents’ hindquarters about freedom of religion. Certainly the judges and media don’t.

            It is time to hit them with a multi-faceted approach that includes freedom of association; free agency and waking up society to the fact that we all discriminate as a matter of normal daily practice of freedom of association. It will also require driving across the distinction that while we recognize that persons are protected from discrimination, behaviors aren’t.

            Leftists heads will explode, but there is a lot of merit in this article that gays don’t have the right to be free from discrimination:

            http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/sorry-gays-you-dont-have-the-right-to-be-free-from-discrimination/

        • America First

          I wonder, what if Christians wanted the lesbian gay florist or cake makers to do what they wanted! Would they do it? Or not? State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is an abomination. He doesn’t belong in America where GODS LAWS reign Supreme not his immoral laws. I hope the Radiation from Japan does him in!

          • uzza

            News–Lesbians make cakes and flowers for Christians every day. In fact PAGAN lesbians and gays provide services for Christians every day. Without complaining.

            They set a much better example.

          • America First

            I wish it would be in the news though. While I do disagree with someone’s lifestyle, I still would do my best to accommodate all people and then there would be no hassle. But any business should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose not to serve? I mean…can’t it be the other way around whereas there are other businesses that serve the same product. This is what I learned about certain businesses I refuse to go back to, knowing I can get the same elsewhere. Here is the catch: certain businesses are very very good at what their products promote and so therefore the Gay Lesbian groups know what the very best means to their money. Therefore they just wanted a cake made in their honor. I do not want to speculate about what exactly were the intentions of the gay couple were doing as to testing this particular business for its Christian Values or? The bottom line is, America is a nation now that has taken clearly out of content the meaning of Freedom or Rights under anything Goes. So we have a huge mixer of types of people and their lifestyles conflicting with one another. Lets put it mildly, threatening businesses because they do not want to do something because of their beliefs is the same as Gays and Lesbians being forced to do something against their beliefs.

          • uzza

            We tried that “a business should be able to refuse service to anyone”–we ended up with Jim Crow. I wouldn’t serve Christians if I wasn’t forced to by law, but it’s a small price to pay for the legal right to shop wherever I want.

            No one forced me to go into business, I freely chose to do so in the full knowledge that I would have to serve pedophiles, Christians, racists, rapists and republicans.
            Having made that choice, I have the moral integrity to do so and not go back on my word. Stutzman doesn’t.

          • America First

            I like using Human Beings to refer to all of us. Its too bad we must label each and everyone of us somewhat because of what we want to believe must be. This is what will be used in the New World Order having a Great Leader promote peace through one world Government protecting all people as Humans. It has been happening in America for quite some time. Christians will have to adapt to what the Reality is with the population growing with more and more people with different prospective and beliefs. Today if you were in a restaurant you do not know or would want to know if the persons eating on another table are rapist, illegals or whoever you would fear? You want to enjoy your meal and then also believe we are all humans and so respect must be given.

          • Eponymous1

            Jim Crow was a government regime of discrimination. You want to deny an individual free expression and association — the right to NOT act in a way that offends their conscience.

          • uzza

            Oh, those poor poor Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, exercising their consciences by hanging black people. We’re so oppressing them now.

          • Eponymous1

            Do you have anything better than this lame, off topic slander? That one is so threadbare you can see right through it.

            Let me know if you have any real argument or thought to offer. I’ll wait.

          • Griffonn

            It figures you’d lie about Jim Crow. Gay rights activists think the ends justify the means, that’s why they keep lying and lying and lying.

            It is why they said they “just wanted to live and let live” for years.
            And why they said they don’t want to take anyone’s religious rights. They lied because they have to – there is no way to make a gay union equal to a healthy intact family except through lies, and making everyone else around them lie, because kids want and have a right to a mom and a dad and that means they need to be raised with lies and lies and more lies.

            So of course you lie. The entire thing is a lie.

            And that’s why people don’t want to participate. It stopped being about equality and became “now you have to be part of my gay wedding or else!” because you need to take from us our right to recognize the sacred, because your lies are not compatible with the belief that what happens when a family is made is an inherently sacred act. You want it to be a cheap consumer transaction – buying a custom-built baby – so that you can pretend to be doing it too, but without actually worrying about the rights of the rest of the family unit.

          • Eponymous1

            And these bakers served these same “lesbians and gays” every day. They just didn’t want to participate in an EVENT specifically celebrating homosexual behavior they privately object to.

          • uzza

            Do you have anything better than this lame, off topic slander? That one is so threadbare you can see right through it.
            Let me know if you have any real argument or thought to offer. I’ll wait

          • Eponymous1

            Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
            So, completely inapplicable as that re-posted comment is here in this context, it still represents a quite unintended compliment.

          • Griffonn

            Yeah, as long as the cake doesn’t say anything THEY don’t approve of.

            But try getting a lesbian baker to make a cake with the wrong Bible quotes on it – oh wait: several civil libertarians have tried exactly that, and have found that the gays and lesbians responded with obscenity and abuse about the evil dirty Christians!

            Because your definition of tolerance is that we can all be who we are and do what we want, as long as we are who you want us to be and do what you tell us to.

          • Griffonn

            Civil libertarians have been doing this and the complaints have been dismissed, the media is outraged that anyone would DARE to be so “HATEFUL” as to demand that a gay person or gay-friendly person make an artifact that supports Biblical, traditional definitions of marriage.

            Because it was never about equality or tolerance. It was always about gaining as much advantage as possible before revealing their true agenda.

          • America First

            And I have an answer to all of this: REVOLUTION that is if the REAL AMERICANS WILL STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING AND FIGHT BACK. Only when we get RID of those GAYS and Lesbians with their Ungodly lifestyle will America be WHOLE AGAIN. Where are our Leaders or so called leaders to stand up. The Christian community is full of WHIMPS!

          • Griffonn

            There is no need to “get rid of them”.

            Simply pointing out the lies that their arguments rest upon should be adequate.

          • America First

            I do not believe their place is in America and freedom is never intended to be given to them because of their reprobate minds.

          • Griffonn

            I am always amused when the people who claim to believe in “tolerance” caricature those whom they hate and loathe so very much.

            Yeah, right, we just secretly want to KILL YOU ALL. Sure.

            Why don’t you use that as a justification for going to shoot up the Discovery Institute. You could bring some Chik-Fil-A to stuff in the corpses’ mouths, just in case anyone missed why them evil Christians “needed killin”.

          • America First

            Tolerance? I am amused that people throw that stupid word out there as an excuse that we do not want to put up with those with something that goes against our Faith and God. It also is one belief system against another. And I will say it AGAIN. The rights in this country and by our Founding Fathers NEVER EVER came from Government but from God. And those rights never insisted upon those who create sick beliefs over Christian beliefs. It is a battle against those whom have this constant belief that any other life style other than Christian is okay because our rights say so? That is the most stupidest understatement ever. For all I know it is a battle of spiritual darkness and that darkness consist of those who try to force our children into thinking gay and lesbian lifestyle rights are okay and should be embrace. Bottom line: It will not be long before Christians will leave for a better place rather than stay in this ugly world that evil men and women gather to deceive the human race for their ungodly ways.

          • Griffonn

            Christians do not need to stay in the closet.

            Gays are just gonna have to learn to live and let live.

          • America First

            One more thing: I would rather not fight nor deal with the gay and lesbian people but the real threat in America is the Muslims and their imposing of Sharia law.

          • Griffonn

            I’m sorry you have not yet made the connection between the “Sexual Revolution” promise of rights without responsibilities and the corresponding weakening of social ties, thus making us unable to deal with external threats.

            If the lefties had not broken our families and our communities, Islam would be no threat to us today. Instead, the promise of “free sex without obligation” – at the expense of our children, who are abandoned, sold (to wealthy gay men to play dolly with), neglected, or killed outright – has created two generations of alienated Americans who aren’t ready to lift a finger to defend the idea of what America was supposed to be, because all they see are a lot of narcissistic adults fetishizing their sex life: the New American Way.

        • Steven J Button

          If a florist providing flowers for a gay wedding means the florist is a participant in the wedding, what about the gun store clerk at sells a gun to someone who commits a murder with it? Using your logic, the gun store owner should also be charged with murder. Your argument makes no sense.

          • webshade

            A very bad comparison! What does this have to do with being Gay or gay marriage?
            Who walks into a gun shop and says to the owner ” Hello! I am planning a murder and possible robbery and I need the right gun for the job, what can you recommend?” In this case, the gun shop owner would hold some responsibility for selling the gun being told the reason for the purchase.

      • Danny1029

        Really…Do you think the AG would have went after a muslim florist if he refused a gay couple ??

        • Bill

          yes I do. you’re the only ones that are afraid of muslims

          • Danny1029

            Really Bill ?? Can you tell me off the top of your head where a muslim anywhere in this country has been charged or even accused of a hate crime ??

          • Bill

            I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

          • Eponymous1

            Of course you don’t.

          • Paul

            Yup, you can judge a tree by its fruits. The only thing public accommodation laws are used for is sting operations upon those groups that the populists loathe.

          • Eponymous1

            Really. Then why hasn’t it happened, not even once?

          • Bill

            maybe because christans are the majority so most stores are run by them

          • Bobbybestcat

            you haven’t seen the video of the muslim bakers refusing to make the wedding cake for the homosexual ceremony? No threats against them. So far, no AG intrusion.

          • Bill

            I’ve seen it and I don’t care.

          • Bobbybestcat

            until the weight of the government falls on them, then you should care as it impacts your argument

          • Bill

            no it doesn’t.

      • Eponymous1

        You WILL celebrate us. Or we’ll destroy you.

        Love,

        The LGBTSTFU Mob.

        • Bill

          no asking you to celebratit they just want you to do your job.

          • Eponymous1

            … which is to celebrate perversi… uh… diversity.

          • Bill

            no it’s doing your job

      • Griffonn

        More lies, because gay rights is nothing but lies.

        Is there anything gay rights activists have ever said that is NOT a lie?

        I suppose we should be grateful that you’ve stopped pretending that you just want to “live and let live” and you are open about your desire to shove your beliefs down everyone’s throat.

        I suppose we should be grateful that you guys have stopped pretending you don’t want to strip us of our religious rights.

        But really, I just loathe myself for having supported gay rights for as long as I did. I taught my children to support gay rights, and now only *one* of them has woken up to how monstrous you people really are.

        • Bill

          the only thing homosexuals want is to be treated like everyone else and
          that includes being able to walk into any store and receive service.

          • Griffonn

            The Roman Catholic church does not recognize my marriage, but that doesn’t make me need to troll them and hate on them and demand that they lose their right to recognize the sacrament of marriage as they understand it.

            But, then, you can’t persuade people, can you? You have to use force. Because your “marriage” is not actually like a real one, and everyone knows it – you need to use the law to create the equality, an equality that isn’t actually there.

            Individuals are equal under the law. Homosexual couplings are not equal to healthy, normal marriages.

          • Bill

            the government say they are. and that’s what matters. you’re free to hate homosexuals but you cannot treat them differently

          • Griffonn

            “Might makes right” has never worked well for gays in the past. What makes you think it will work any better now?

          • Bill

            because its worked before.

          • Griffonn

            BTW the government does not have the power to turn your pathetic semantic fallacy into a true statement.

          • Bill

            the government say their marriages are valid and that’s matter matters

          • Griffonn

            If that were all that mattered you wouldn’t need to troll pizza places and bakeries.

            A lie doesn’t become true just because you find a powerful friend who can hurt people who refuse to play along with the lie.

          • Bill

            why want to be treated fairly and equally

          • Griffonn

            The problem for you is that you think “fairly and equally” means whatever you want it to mean, and you’re getting carried away with your greed.

  • Trevor Thomas

    One of the most frequent and favorite cries of the left is the dreaded “d-word:” discrimination. Never-mind that virtually every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” As Al Mohler put it, “Discrimination—even ‘obvious discrimination’—is not necessarily wrong at all. Indeed, any sane society discriminates at virtually every turn, as do individuals. The law itself is an instrument of comprehensive discrimination.”

    In fact, the notion of same-sex “marriage” requires a measure of “discrimination.” What about the polygamists, or the incestuous? So a real dilemma for the left here lies not in their efforts to gain acceptance of same-sex marriage, but rather, how they would (eventually) discriminate and define marriage? Also problematic for liberals: upon what moral code would this definition rest?

    See: “To Define Marriage, We Must ‘Discriminate:'” http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/2012/06/to-define-marriage-we-must-discriminate.html

    • Bill

      look up the legal definition of discrimination moron

      • Trevor Thomas

        Look up the prevailing legal definition of marriage the world over for millennia jackass. So, exactly how are you willing to “discriminate” and define marriage?

        • Bill

          so what? we aren’t talking about the rest of the world we’re talking about America and in America the legal definition of discrimination is

          ” unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics”

          unfair
          or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain
          characteristics, – See more at:
          http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html#sthash.ElgEYqKY.dpu
          unfair
          or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain
          characteristics, – See more at:
          http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html#sthash.ElgEYqKY.dpuf

          • Trevor Thomas

            Exactly. So are you willing to “discriminate” against the polygamists, incestuous, “throuples,” (each of which there are recent examples that were widely reported on by the media) and the like when it comes to your definition of marriage?

          • Bill

            they’re free to argue their case same as anyone. no one is unlawfully discriminating against them

          • Trevor Thomas

            The homosexuals have made the arguments for them. (“Love is love,” right?) And yes, according to the very definition you supplied, if their “marriages” are not legally recognized, then they are being “discriminated” against. For over two centuries in this country no one was “unlawfully” discriminating against homosexuals as their perverse notion of “marriage” had never even entered the mind of anyone sane and reasonable.

          • Bill

            the argument isn’t that love is love it’s that there’s no valid reason to deny gay couples the right to marriage. if any other group feels they’re being denied their rights they’re free ot make their case. oh and appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. what the people of the past thought is irrelevant.

          • Trevor Thomas

            There’s PLENTY of valid reasons to deny homosexuals marriage rights. First of all, homosexuality is extremely unhealthy and dangerous. (See: http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/p/dangers-of-homosexuality.html) Secondly, by definition same-sex “marriage” denies children one of the essential elements necessary in parenting.

            And yes, the very same arguments made by homosexuals on the “right” to marry can (and are, and will continue to) be made by polygamists, incestuous, “throuples,” and the like. There is absolutely no legal or logical reason that the courts can accept these arguments for homosexuals and deny them for the other perverts. Also, there’s no sound or logical reason that liberals in the media (and in online chats) should not make the same case for these other perverts as they have for homosexuals.

          • Bill

            people aren’t denied the right to marriage based on how healthy they are. and the children of gay parents do just as well as the kids of heterosexual ones so they obliviously have the elements necessary in parenting. if there’s no no legal reason to deny them marriage then there’s no no legal reason. I can accept that

          • Trevor Thomas
          • Bill

            Got anything from reputable websites? tell me if kids have right to a mom and dad then why are single parents allowed to raise kids?

          • Trevor Thomas

            Ah yes, ignore the information and attack the source(s). Of course, yes, some kids are raised in situations where both parents are not present. However, that does not change the facts. The law should aim for the ideal, not promote that which brings harm.

          • Bill

            no harm has been brought. just because some people had less than prefect childhoods doesn’t mean that gay couples should be denied marriage or children.

          • MisterPine

            If two monogamous homosexuals are in a relationship, there is nothing dangerous or unhealthy about it. How are they going to catch any kind of social disease?

          • Trevor Thomas

            Ahhh, but homosexuals are RARELY monogamous. Even the homosexual propagandists in the media recently reported on this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

            After all, why be monogamous? What moral standard says that this should be the case?

          • MisterPine

            Why do they want to get married then if they don’t want to be monogamous?

            Didn’t think this through, did you?

            Got any ACTUAL stats to show homosexuals are any more or less monogamous than straight people (who don’t exactly have a good track record themselves)?

          • Trevor Thomas

            Because they want legal protection for their perverse relationship–of course! Through the significant power of the U.S. legal system, homosexuals and their apologists want to force the acceptance of homosexuality all across our culture. Everything from privately owned businesses to corporations, schools, the military, churches, and the like must be forced to accept homosexuality as normal, healthy behavior. (So yes, I’ve thought this through.)

            The link I provided referenced “ACTUAL stats.” And so does this: http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/p/dangers-of-homosexuality.html

          • MisterPine

            They simply want what everyone else gets. It isn’t special treatment. And there’s nothing “perverse” about their relationships, that’s fundamentalist hogwash. Did you choose who you fell in love with?

            There is no non-religious reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as everyone else. Because there’s no reason they should not have them.

            And are you serious, quoting your OWN (fundamentalist) website as a source of supposedly reliable information? Give me a break! Is it so hard to turn to mental health websites and science?

          • Trevor Thomas

            No, everyone else doesn’t get what you are referring to. (As I’ve well demonstrated.) Again, if it’s about “love” what about the polygamists, incestuous, etc.?

            Again, attacking the source. My site references such data.

          • Paul Hiett

            Those things have nothing to do with SSM.

          • Trevor Thomas

            Again: They are making the same legal and moral arguments as the homosexual agenda. It has EXACTLY the same-thing to do with SSM.

          • Peter Leh

            actually we christians have LESS of a biblical argument against polygamy, as there is no explicit prohibition.

            it is not about “love” but about individuals citizens of the United States having the right to form, define and protect their lives as they see fit.

            incestuous relationships were indeed a lifestyle not prohibited until the jews left eqypt. Incestuous prohibitions are indeed arbitrary nt matter what argument is being made to try a legalize it.

          • Trevor Thomas

            Jesus was very clear about marriage when he quoted from Genesis chapter 1 & 2.

          • Peter Leh

            Yes. Jesus did quote Gen 1. what if it? There is no prohibition in word or practice in the scripture except for paul explicitly saying a deacon/ elder is to have “one wife”. But that is not a verse to use either against polygamy as Paul was being specific for a specific position in the church.

          • MisterPine

            Unless you’re prepared to show me what homosexual polygamists and incestuousness you’re referring to (which could not also be applied to straight people), I’m going to suggest you’re talking nonsense.

            Your site is a fundamentalist Christian propaganda site.

  • Crysostomos Haloftis

    I do see how the gay communities are throwing punches at Christians. These gay people are obviously evil people in our eyes (straight people) but they don’t have to know that we all know this. It will be their demise one day not ours. Your honour….please take this $1000 fine and keep the change…..I still wouldn’t serve these gay people.

    • Bill

      I’m straight and I don’t think homosexuals are evil. don’t assume everyone shares your vile hate.

      • Taussig

        Ditto

  • Oshtur Vishanti

    And now a third chance to end this, run her business legally AND obey her conscience as she currently is – the business doesn’t sell wedding floral services to anyone.

    Or she could spin off the wedding services into a second corporation, make it a private club – find the members first and then invite just the club members to do business with her. Again an alternative that is legal AND allows her to run her business as her conscience dictates.

    But make an offer to the general public and then not respect the civil rights of the people taking you up on the invitation? Not legal and not Christian.

    She should pay the fine, continue not offering wedding floral services through Arlene’s Flowers LLC and the result will be a legally run business and never having had to violate her conscience.

    I hope the ADF will let her though without them slapping her with a huge legal aid bill.

  • Crysostomos Haloftis

    I agree…stand your ground and do not allow anyone…even a judge inside a courtroom tell you what to do with your life. It is not theirs. It is yours. My life does not belong to any judge. It belongs to GOD. Gay people I do feel sorry for and I will pray for them. This is almost as bad as racism in America. Really really sad.

  • Crysostomos Haloftis

    We (hetrosexuals) do not care if you (gays) read this or not. You gays need GOD in your lives. You can smile and laugh at this now…but you will pay for it later.

    • Parque_Hundido

      I’m imagining that gays would tell you that you need a real God in your life.

    • SammySeattle

      Empty threats.

  • Crysostomos Haloftis

    I can’t believe the countless morons that actually fear a simple “law”. Who cares if people are faggots or dykes and want to get married. It’s not even a true marriage anyways. And these so-called laws are just rules pulled out of some magic hat anyways. As far as I am concerned….the ONLY laws I will ever obey are God’s. Not a man’s…..’nuff said.

    • MisterPine

      The law considers it a real marriage, as do the people involved IN the marriage. I think those are the only people who matter.

  • webshade

    These penalties are plainly called INJUSTICE! And all these people know it!! “Do what we want or we will destroy you”!!

    • Parque_Hundido

      These penalties are way too light. I would like to see something in the six figure range.

    • Peter Leh

      get educated.

      She violated her own registration she herself made with the state. IF she did not wish to be cited by the state she could have changed to a religious corp (like the hitching post in Idaho) or stopped service to weddings (like the CO baker), or subcontracted the job out, or just serviced the “abominable service” like she has other services.

      bottom line is she had choices. It was up to her to change the business policy or registration with the state that would satisfy her conscience AND the state law.

      one is no martyr when one has choices.

  • Parque_Hundido

    This is great news. Baronelle would do well to pay the fine and stop discriminating.

    • webshade

      Suppose an acquaintance of yours wanted you to drive him to a local mini-mart to rob it or an old ladies social security money she just pulled out of the bank, and he says “I just need you to help me get away fast by dropping me off a few miles away since I don’t have a car”! Now, suppose morally you think this is wrong and you should not assist him to do it. Would you discriminate against helping your friend because your conscience might be “pulling” you away from that?

      • Parque_Hundido

        Refusing to aid and abet someone in the commission of a crime is not what the law defines as discrimination.

        That’s not a very clever argument.

        • webshade

          This is not a distinction between crimes, but a moral problem. You falsely focus on the crime aspect of the example I gave instead of focusing on the moral dilemma that is involved. Your answer tells me you would morally have a problem with such a scenario, but in the same moral dilemma for a Christian whether a crime or a wrong behavior, does she not have the same option as you to not partake of something she believes to be wrong? Crime has a moral component the same as behaviors do. You simply want to avoid what the answer might mean to your position. It’s called avoidance.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No.

            If you want to approach this from a moral perspective, do so. Ms. Stutzman cannot offer wedding services to the public if she is not willing to serve the public. If she has a moral issue serving some members of the public, she needs to resolve that in a way that does not also involve a criminal act of discrimination.

            Instead, she chose not to resolve her moral dilemma because she stood to gain money by only offering her services to certain segments of the public. She chose to act as she did because it was economically expedient for her to do so and because she stood to gain financially.

            She got caught. She’s being punished for her deliberate, premeditated violation of Washington state law.

            There is no moral dilemma here. Stutzman could have avoided this and stuck to her beliefs. Instead, she violated the law out of greed, sloth or both.

          • webshade

            This is an emotional argument and not objective. You are ascribing things to this woman like pre-meditated violation, greed, sloth which you nothing about and seem to delight in her possible ruin as if this is personal for you simply because she did not want to do flower arrangement for a homosexual wedding, which she did not want to participate in.
            You need some help.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No, this is a case of you seeing what you want to see. You attribute her motives to beliefs and religion. But the fact pattern in this case suggests a very different motive.

            If she had a moral conflict around doing work for same secx

  • uzza

    This is now legal.
    A couple enter a flower shop and ask for flowers for their upcoming wedding. The owner, a Wiccan, tells them, “I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Mother Earth.”
    OK or not OK?

    • Theresa Easley

      I would just take my business elsewhere then instead of suing. I do support Ms. Stutzman because Christians have rights, too.

      • Taussig

        they don’t have the right to break state laws

    • bowie1

      What about two neo-nazis getting married and wanting a cake with a swastika on it?

      • uzza

        What about them?

        • bowie1

          Would you be willing to make such a cake if you were in that business?

          • uzza

            I would obey the law and make it, unwillingly, because I believe in Democracy, not theocracy or chaos.
            More importantly I would do it to honor the oath I took (2nd commandment–no false swearing) by signing a formal contract with the State to offer my services to the general public and accepting a license to do so.

            Truthfulness is important to me. If the request was so outrageous I felt I could not in good conscience keep my promise, I would close down my business. What I would NOT do is hypocritically continue to proclaim that I offer a service to the general public and then not keep my word. (8th Commandment–no lying)
            What would you do?

          • Joshua Tree

            I’d tell the Nazi’s to get lost, say I’m not putting a swastika on a cake.

            For some reason I don’t think that will cause as much controversy as objections for religious reasons. Then again modern “equality” is rife with double standards.

          • Paul Hiett

            Check with your local city council, see what the law says in regards to commerce and things like that. When running a business, CYA first.

          • uzza

            Are you religious? If not, breaking Commandments is no sweat. Breaking the law is another matter. Civil disobedience is a legitimate tactic, and I don’t think you’d get much flak for it.
            My schtick was the hypocrisy of people like Stutzman who claim religious freedom to violate their own religion.

          • Joshua Tree

            How do you figure she violated her own religion? I’m Christian but understand there are infinite possible religions. All religions are protected for freedom of expression in the 1st Amendment.

            When it comes to religion we are all hypocrites. I respect her for standing up for her beliefs and pushing back against those who consider forcing cultural acceptance of their alternative lifestyle to be of greater importance than the God-given rights recognized as applicable to all humans in the Bill of Rights.

          • uzza

            You evidently didn’t read my post. For a christian to break the commandments is violating their religious beliefs.

            All religions are not protected: my own religion is restricted in numerous ways, Quezacoatl no longer gets any human hearts, and Rome’s Imperial Cult is no longer allowed to feed Christians to lions.

          • Joshua Tree

            I see. Are you Christian? Most Christians (like all people) have broken many if not all of the Commandments. Jesus died so that we may be redeemed.

            Which commandment did she break, in your view, anyway? Seems to me she was rather clearly attempting to follow God in a situation which has been complicated due to interpretations of the law contrary to the Bill of Rights.

          • uzza

            Dishonesty, ok. Either you refuse to read what you’re responding to, or you’re too dumb to understand it, which?

            The 2nd commandment forbids false swearing: she broke it when she obtained a license to run a business to serve the general public. The person she refused service to is one of the people she promised to provide services to when she asked for her license. If she had no intention of honoring her word then she lied on her application, thus breaking the 8th commandment. If she intended to keep her word, but later changed her mind she is obligated to close, and since she hasn’t she is breaking the 8th commandment–lying by offering a service to the general public with no intention of serving the general public.

            You say she was following God by lying and making false promises, as well as discriminating against her customers, and you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ who condoned none of these things. A bit much.

          • Joshua Tree

            I must be too dumb because that reads like nonsense to me.

          • uzza

            Guess so. Sorry to hear it.

          • LadySunami

            If you had a “no offensive words or iconography” policy you could refuse to put a swastika on the cake. You can’t refuse to sell them a swastika free cake though. If they buy their own frosting and add a swastika after you hand the cake over, that’s their own business.

    • Joshua Tree

      Fine with me I’ll go support another business.

  • JCDArizona

    While I personally have no problem with gays (my son’s godparents are a wonderful lesbian couple) nor do I have any issue with gay marriage. What I do have an issue with is the gays who go out of their way to punish Christian business owners for not agreeing with their lifestyle/orientation/sexuality/whatever when there are no shortage of gay-owned bakeries or gay-friendly bakeries that would happily make them a cake. Who would want to force a business to make them a wedding cake or anything else? Certainly not me.

    Based on the ‘outrage’ from those he want to force businesses to embrace their beliefs over their own, should a black photographer be forced to shoot an Aryan Nation wedding? Should a gay print shop be forced to print anti-gay fliers? Of course not, but that is exactly what these folks are doing to Christian business owners. Despite the rhetoric surrounding Indiana’s recently passed law and others on the books, it’s not about posting ‘no gays allowed’ signs or creating straight and gay restrooms, but about protecting business owners from others forcing their beliefs on them by way of government mandates. I’m quite positive that no Christian owned business would turn away a gay customer just for being gay – they just won’t go against their own religious beliefs and make you a cake, print pride t-shirts, pro-gay fliers, etc.

    It’s really not that difficult to grasp, but there is no shortage of uninformed alarmists out there spreading their misinformation and unfortunately just as many uniformed people happily willing to accept it as fact.

    • Paul Hiett

      Perhaps you should read up on the law there? A business owner may not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious beliefs. They weren’t “targeted”, or “punished”. This florist made a conscientious decision to break the law.

      • JCDArizona

        The laws are the problem as they fail to define where one person’s beliefs end and another person’s begin. Based on your wanting to follow the law, my guess is that you would agree that a black photographer should be forced to shoot an Aryan Nation wedding and a gay print shop be forced to print anti-gay fliers, correct?

        • Paul Hiett

          Religious beliefs have no place in business. If you open a business in this country, you agree to abide by the laws governing commerce in that area. Either you agree to all of the laws, or suffer the consequences.

          • JCDArizona

            I get your stance on the issue, but you didn’t answer my question.

          • Paul Hiett

            1. The black photographer would be required to shoot the wedding if he offers his services to the public.

            2. Printing hate speech is not required by law.

            Next?

          • JCDArizona

            You jumped right to hate speech – what if the fliers just said “Vote no on HB526” – some bill legalizing gay marriage?

          • Paul Hiett

            In that case yes, they must.

          • JCDArizona

            I would love to see them or an equally ridiculous example happen just to see what comes of it, though I highly doubt any government office would force either of those absurd business transactions to occur. Unfortunately, these days Christians have become an easy target and those who wish to discount their beliefs are a very vocal minority that seem to be backed by anti-discrimination laws and while I certainly don’t back the aforementioned Aryan’s or even the anti-gay crowd, everyone has a right to their beliefs, Christians included. It all comes down to where one person’s beliefs end and another’s begin.

          • Paul Hiett

            The laws governing commerce are Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish. Those laws protect everyone, and anyone wishing to open a business must abide by those laws, or suffer the consequences.

            This is pretty simple.

        • Peter Leh

          they do define it. Citizens have their rights and laws. Business have their the two are not the same

        • Peter Leh

          “Based on your wanting to follow the law, my guess is that you would agree
          that a black photographer should be forced to shoot an Aryan Nation
          wedding and a gay print shop be forced to print anti-gay fliers,
          correct?”

          hate speech s not protected.

  • Covered California

    I know I’m going to hell for this but isnt ironic that she looks like a total lesbian lol

    • Parque_Hundido

      I glad you went there so I wouldn’t have to.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Given how important it is to her to not violate her religious beliefs, I wonder if, when a heterosexual couple order flowers for a wedding, she inquires of either of the couple has been divorced for reasons other than adultery and refuses the order if so. I wonder if, when asked to do flowers for a baby shower, she inquires if the mother-to-be is married, and refuses the order if so if she is not. I wonder if, when asked to do flowers for an engagement party, she inquires if the couple are having sexual relations outside of marriage, and refuses the order if so. I wonder if, when asked to do flowers for a wedding, she inquires whether the ceremony will be done in a Christian church invoking the Christian god, and refuses if it is not.

    If she is not, then violating her religious beliefs apparently is not that important.

  • Edward Ebersole

    If it had been me I would not have mentioned Jesus Chris at all. I would have kept what I discern and dictate is right and wrong between me and my conscious. I would have easily come up with some other excuse. And like the florist I would have referred any of my cliental to other florists if I was not able to help them or was only able provide limited aid.

  • riser310

    People are confusing “participating in a event that their religion considers immoral” with refusing to serve a customer because of their sexual orientation. Because this is the Christian News Network, the facts are colored with the words “servce” and “do” the wedding, to suggest that the woman would have been forced to actively participate in the ceremony. I do not know to what extent this is true from the facts outlined here. I support the Washington Law that requires a business owner to treat all customers equally, also with regards to the customers orientation. If a florist has a personal or religious issue with decorating a particular church, chapel or catering venue because of their moral issues with the event that will take place in that venue, perhaps that florist should only sell the flowers and not deliver or decorate ANY location and just sell for self decorating. But then in any state with a non-discrimination law such as WA, then sell to all without.prejudice. What the customer does with the flowers is the customer’s business after the sale is made. And people, its about FLOWERS, not guns, bought for LOVE not hate!

  • Peter Leh

    $1000? consider herself lucky.

  • Peter Leh

    ““Today’s judgment affirms the court’s earlier decision that Barronelle
    must pay a penalty for her faith and surrender her freedom and
    conscience,” said Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner in a statement.”

    here is a lesson for those who wish to hear.

    Waggoner is not at risk, She has not lost income. She will not lose her business. Attorneys do not have to be right or give sound advice to make a living. It is STUTZMAN who has lost by taking the poor legal advice from someone who has nothing to lose.

    • SFBruce

      Not only has Waggoner not lost income, the ADF will undoubtedly use this case to fund raise. I hope Ms. Stutzman knows this is why they took the case in the first place. She certainly got very bad legal advice.

      • Peter Leh

        yep.

        that is where Waggoner is valuable to the ADF.

  • Caleb Stubbs

    No, she isn’t “in jeopardy of losing her business, home, and life savings.” She has to pay exactly $1001 for violating the law: $1000 for the fine and $1 for court costs. That’s more than reasonable when it comes to knowingly violating state law. See http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-fines-washington-florist-sex-wedding-flowers-29964374

    • KenS

      Did you not read the entire article, I realize this was at the end of the article,so let me help you by pasting it here for you: “But ADF says that Friday’s order is just the tip of the iceberg.

      “Today’s judgment affirms the court’s earlier decision that Barronelle must pay a penalty for her faith and surrender her freedom and conscience,” said Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner in a statement. “The penalty and fees imposed today are only the first punch.”

      “The ACLU, on behalf of the same-sex couple also suing Barronelle, has asked the court to award them penalties, fees, and costs, which will financially devastate Barronelle’s business and personal assets—including taking this 70-year old grandmother’s retirement and personal savings,” she explained further. “The message sent by the attorney general and the ACLU to the people of Washington is quite clear: surrender your religious liberty and free speech rights, or face personal and professional ruin.””

      • Caleb Stubbs

        Yes, I read the entire article…and I fact checked it according to the reports from ABC News and others. You should do the same. Nowhere in this article does it say how much she actually has to pay for legal fees. Instead, it makes it sound like Mrs. Stutzman is having to give up an arm and a leg to pay them and the government is attacking Christians, yada yada yada, and that’s simply not true. How much are these ridiculous legal fees that are reportedly going to cost her her home, business, and personal savings? $1. Who is saying that this is just the first punch? Not the judges…not the plaintiffs…the ADF. I’m sure they don’t have an agenda or anything to push the “Christians are under attack” rhetoric.

        All I want you to do is look at the facts. She is being charged a $1000 discrimination fine plus $1 in legal fees. And when she pays it within the next 2 months, then that’s the end of it. No one is losing their home or business or personal savings.

        • KenS

          I can tell you from experience working in a lawyer’s office, that she will pay more than $1 in legal fees. Court costs are caluclated based on the fine and usally add up to almost if not the same amount of the fines. Therefore, the least she will be paying the court itself let alone any lawyer’s fees will be somewhere around the $2000 and below mark.

          Also, the point I am making is the article we are given specifically states that she still has the other lawsuit pending that is being backed up by the

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. The court costs have already been set at $1. The other suit exists only in ADF marketing materials. You’ve been duped.

  • Kadie Cephile

    So, if you’re Jewish in the state of Washington, you can be forced to supply pork in your deli, or if you are a physician who doesn’t agree with abortions, you could be forced to perform one, or if you’re Amish, you could be forced to sell cars, or if you are a vegan, you could be forced to sell meat, or if you’re a tree-hugger, you can be forced to sell wood, or if you’re an African American advertising agency, you could be forced to sell ads for the KKK. I thought that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the right of freedom of religion and its free exercise, but apparently not anymore. Looks like we are living in a secular humanist state that forces people to abide by their state religion much the same way an Islamic state forces people to be Muslim or pay the penalties and fines of not following the “correct” religious view. Forcing a true believer in Christ to participate in a homosexual “marriage” is the equivalent of forcing an African American to sell white hoods to a KKK meeting. It is just wrong. The law is wrong on this one. People should have a right of conscience.

    • Paul Hiett

      No, Kadie, that’s not how it works. For instance, in your first example, if the deli never offered pork in the first place, you can’t sue them to force them to offer it.

      It would be like a Japanese man suing Long John Silvers for not serving Sushi. People can’t be forced to sell something they don’t offer.

      • Kadie Cephile

        So, because I am 70+ years old and have been doing this business all my life and now the state has decided to change the definition of marriage, I have to forfeit my business, my life savings, my home because I have been offering flowers to everyone including these gentlemen all these years. Keep in mind that I respectfully declined to participate in an endorsement of their union because my faith demands it, and referred them to other florists and did not prevent them from getting married by my actions. Basically what you seem to be saying and what the state is saying is that you can’t be a photographer, a baker, a florist, a wedding planner, etc. if you do not believe in homosexual marriage. I am simply saying what is next, will we be able to be Christian doctors and nurses if we do not wish to provide contraceptives or abortions?

        • Paul Hiett

          Yes, that is correct. It was once legal to separate water fountains and restrooms between blacks and whites. It was once illegal for whites and blacks to marry. Restaurants could refuse to serve them too. Hotels as well.

          We changed the laws in this country, but it didn’t mean that a business in place before the law was changed could ignore that new law. Laws change all the time. It is up to the business owner to keep in compliance with them.

          Another great example of this are our safety laws…what OSHA oversees. Those laws change all the time, and yes, businesses are expected to change their operations based on those laws.

          • Kadie Cephile

            I understand. I know you think that I don’t. The lady sold flowers to these gentlemen. They could come in an sit at her counters, and use her water fountains and restrooms and even shop for flowers. Yes, I know that it was illegal in some places for interracial marriages to take place, but I’ve never heard of a case where a mixed race couple forced a florist or a photographer to participate in their nuptials.

          • Paul Hiett

            Before 1967, an interracial couple couldn’t marry, so that wouldn’t have even come up. After 1967, it was legal. A florist or photographer wouldn’t have been allowed, legally, to refuse them. Did it happen? Probably…I just haven’t seen anything related.

            It would still be illegal based on the discrimination laws.

      • KenS

        Here is where you are wrong, the florist never sold flowers for a gay wedding before either, because they did not exist, therefore when she went into business she has always provided services for heterosexual weddings and with the onset of gay weddings coming into existence, they are trying to say they are the same when they are not. It would be no different than pork being all of a sudden redefined as some other meat that is kosher and then the Jewish man being forced now to sell it.

        That is what we are facing here, and I do not see it getting any better until Christ returns.

    • SammySeattle

      If the African American sold white hoods to everyone else, you might have a point. If the Jewish Deli owner sold pork to everyone else, you might have a point. If the vegan sold meat to everyone else, you might have a point. You don’t have a point.

      • Kadie Cephile

        I see what you are saying, but it seems to me that if the state can force a person to do something against their religious beliefs, then we are all in danger.

        • Paul Hiett

          When it comes to running a business, the laws that apply are different from those we enjoy as citizens. I can choose not to enter a business run by blacks, or Muslims, or anything else. I have that choice. A business owner, however, is bound by the laws governing commerce, and most cities/states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and sometimes, sexual orientation.

          The owner may not always agree with the laws, but in order to conduct business, they must abide.

      • KenS

        The florist sold flowers for male/female marriages, then marriage was redefined, she should have been given the option at the point that they were redefined to offer services to all the new definitions or only what she already sold, which is only what was on her menu/selection of services before this redefinition happened.

    • Peter Leh

      Katie, rudimentary knowledge of business laws would keep you from saying such foolish things.

      education is freeing… get out of bondage.

      all the best to you

      • Kadie Cephile

        Well, then, let me ask you this. Say I am an atheist who sells books. Would the law mean I would have to sell Bibles, too? It just seems very wrong to me that someone should be forced to do something against their faith and be put out of business for standing on principles of their belief. No offense to the gay couple, but she did recommend other florists who could serve them, and she just didn’t want to participate in their wedding. It is not as if they couldn’t go on with their wedding. Do you see what I mean? How about if an African American sells t-shirts and the KKK wants a t-shirt with a confederate flag on it…could they be forced to produce the t-shirt? They are already selling t-shirts, so …

        • Paul Hiett

          In your example, do you advertise that you sell Bibles?

        • Peter Leh

          as a business owner i will answer. 🙂 :

          “Say I am an atheist who sells books. Would the law mean I would have to sell Bibles, too?”

          nope.

          “It just seems very wrong to me that someone should be forced to do
          something against their faith and be put out of business for standing on
          principles of their belief. ”

          i would indeed be very, very wrong…. IF that was indeed what was happening. Which it is most certainly not.

          Arlene’s flowers is a business opened to the public and granted permission by the state of washington to do business per the registration Stutzman, herself, set up and agreed to.

          “No offense to the gay couple, but she did recommend other florists who
          could serve them, and she just didn’t want to participate in their
          wedding”

          correct. she did. However that is a violation of the very agreement with the state just referenced. a legal way to turn away business would be to say “we are booked that day and will not be able to provide service . may i refer you to another florist?” 🙂

          “How about if an African American sells t-shirts and the KKK wants a
          t-shirt with a confederate flag on it…could they be forced to produce
          the t-shirt? ”

          hate speech is not protected.

          • Kadie Cephile

            Thank you for your informative replies. I see that the woman should have said something different. So, if I own a business and do not wish to participate in gay weddings, if I say that I am booked on that date rather than I disagree with homosexual marriage, I won’t be sued?

            Also, no offense, but I thought that all speech was protected even if I don’t like what the person is saying. I find it interesting that those who dislike Christians can get away with calling Christians vile names and threatening them, but we are labeled haters just for disagreeing with the redefinition of marriage—something we hold sacred.

            I thank you for your time, and you have educated me on this subject. This lady will be cared for by other Christians and by our Lord, so I do not worry about her. In my personal opinion, the only hate going on in this situation is the hatred of the homosexual couple against her.

            I do not think we should be able to discriminate against persons who do not live according to the laws of our faith by refusing to serve them, and I do not think that this florist did that. To me selling to them is different than being forced to participate in their ceremony which is a religious activity. I do not think that the state should mandate that we have to participate in activities which violate the mandates of our faith and it would be the same if the state forced us to work at a rally of KKK members or at an atheist conference.

            I think that as Christians we must be prepared to give up our businesses or whatever it takes to follow in obedience to the commands of Scripture. I pray for this lady, but I also pray for the homosexual couple and the state officials who have done this thing.

          • Peter Leh

            Kadie i can see you are a kind person and sincere. You are willing to move past what is on the surface to get more to the root cause.

            “So, if I own a business and do not wish to participate in gay weddings,
            if I say that I am booked on that date rather than I disagree with
            homosexual marriage, I won’t be sued?”

            Only if one can prove you are lying and not providing service based on sexual orientation. If you are truly booked you are ok. If you get away with a lie you are still ok. What cannot be said is “I won’t be providing service because you are gay”, “i don;t believe in SSM so i can;t give you service” ( which is the same as being gay essentially) ETC ETC

            The ethical procedure , knowing that in the state of washington SSM is legal and business open to the public must accommodate, is to:
            #1 discontinue the service. Just as you can;t sue a jewish deli for not serving pork you can;t sue a florist that does not service any wedding. The baker in colorado did this after being cited.

            #2 Subcontract the job out to another florist. This way you are not “participating” in what one would think “abominable”. You still take care of the customer but yet do not participate.

            #3 Serve all.

            #4 Change the business registration to a religious corporation. (See the hitching post in Idaho) This limits the business scope of service but provides the avenue to only do “christian” ceremonies based on a particular brand of theology and allows one to turn away business that does not meet the criteria of the business policy.

            other ways are just as numerous as the imagination of business policy. 🙂

            “In my personal opinion, the only hate going on in this situation is the hatred of the homosexual couple against her.”

            yes i can see that. I think if we were in their shoes would we not demand equal protection? Would we not be upset if we ordered a service just like everyone else but was not treated like everyone else? This is the reason we have public accommodation laws in the first place: when given a chance those in power did not behave. 🙂

            “I do not think that the state should mandate that we have to participate in activities which violate the mandates of our faith”

            and despite the political rhetoric and what we hear from many pulpits this is indeed not happening. When a business and the state enter into a covenant (contract) both parties agree to the rules plainly before them.

            “it would be the same if the state forced us to work at a rally of KKK members or at an atheist conference.”

            police officers and firemen are required to do this BTW. KKK and atheist are tax paying citizens so are homosexuals. the courts are ruled, rightfully so, that as a public citizen one cannot pick and choose which american citizen it will protect and serve. BUt the government has not forced a citizen to go against their faith. I would be the first to protest if so.

            “I do not think we should be able to discriminate against persons who do
            not live according to the laws of our faith by refusing to serve them,
            and I do not think that this florist did that”

            well, according to the registration with the state, the citation from the state, and the statement from Stutzman she did not exactly that. 🙂

            “I think that as Christians we must be prepared to give up our businesses
            or whatever it takes to follow in obedience to the commands of
            Scripture.”

            on day we may have to. I just want to help christians calm down and not drink the koolaid 🙂

            “I pray for this lady, but I also pray for the homosexual couple and the state officials who have done this thing.”

            I do as well. However given the law and what you have learned we can now see the one who has “done this thing” the is owner itself but taking poor legal advice from the ADF and using poor business policy and decisions that violate the very same state regulations she herself agreed to.

            blessings. 🙂

          • Kadie Cephile

            Thank you. I think Christian business owners should consider #4 or even #1 above and as you say seek good counsel when laws are changed. I honestly didn’t know she could have done that.

          • Peter Leh

            i am here to serve….

            and to pop other’s balloons by playing “devil’s advocate”.

            seriously, i really do feel for this woman and sweet cakes by mellisa in oregon. the law suits were so unnecessary, imo. and the martydom complex we have in america over baking a cake or flower;s or whatever while real people are getting sawed in half for being christian really make us look childish and disconnected.

            missionaries laugh at american christian”persecution”

            all the best you. be well

          • KenS

            So, now a confederate flag is hate speech? When did that happen?

          • Peter Leh

            “So, now a confederate flag is hate speech?”

            can be. not the actually confederate flag but the stars and bars or “rebel flag”

            “When did that happen?”

            when the KKK and southern christians used the symbol as an intimidation tactic for the black community?

  • Julien Sharp

    “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:7-9). I sure hope she isn’t also making flower arrangements for anyone who divorced just because they got tired of each other and are now re-marrying!

  • DrewTwoFish

    I like this:

    David J. Dunn, PhD Political theologian. Author. Orthodox Christian.

    “Not making a cake for a gay wedding [or providing flowers] is the real sin because it is something we can actually control. It is the sin of coming across as self-righteous pigs. It is unloving. It sours the couple to the love of Jesus. A lesbian couple is not likely to sit in sackcloth and ashes on the bakery floor…

    …We need a church of the compassionate, a church known more for the people we love than the sins we condemn.”

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Simple solution – don’t offer flowers for weddings.

  • Joshua Tree
  • Dr. Dee Tee

    the aclu needs to be fined, penalized and put out of business. and that state attorney needs to be removed from officve for over-stepping his boundaries

    • Parque_Hundido

      Why? The ACLU had nothing to do with this case.

      • Dr. Dee Tee

        “The ACLU, on behalf of the same-sex couple also suing Barronelle, has
        asked the court to award them penalties, fees, and costs, which will
        financially devastate Barronelle’s business and personal
        assets—including taking this 70-year old grandmother’s retirement and
        personal savings,” she explained further. “The message sent by the
        attorney general and the ACLU to the people of Washington is quite
        clear: surrender your religious liberty and free speech rights, or face
        personal and professional ruin.”

        i guess you didn’t read the whole thing

        • Parque_Hundido

          That’s not this case.

          This case was brought by the state of Washington. The penalties and fees total $1,001.00.

          The ACLU does not have standing to sue Ms. Stutzman. Only an aggrieved party can sue. In this case, that would be the state of Washington, responsible for maintaining a fair marketplace, and the victims, who were unlawfully denied services.

          Again, why hate on the ACLU? They had nothing to do with this case.

          • Dr. Dee Tee

            i am commenting on the ARTICLE . some people are just dumb

          • Parque_Hundido

            You seem to be one of those people.

            The ACLU has nothing to do with this case. Nothing.

          • Dr. Dee Tee

            read the article moron and then re-read my comment as it doe snot state that I am commenting on the case alone.

          • Parque_Hundido

            The only relationship this case has with the ACLU is the one in your head. The ADF very cleverly planted it there so that low wattage dupes like you would make comments like the ones you’ve made here.

            Sometimes I think there should be a test to qualify even native born Americans for citizenship. That would prevent morons like you from voting.

          • Dr. Dee Tee

            will you get some English comprehension and read what I have written.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I believe your issue is critical reading. You’re a dupe. My English is substantially better than yours, that much I know.

          • Dr. Dee Tee

            i wouldn’t say that, you are the one with the problem not me.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You’re the one who can’t separate fact from fiction. It’s a pity we allow people like you to vote.

          • Paul Hiett

            Hey Parque…wanted to apologize for a remark I made to you the other day. I was confused on who had responded to me, just wanted to apologize.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No problem Paul. And good luck with Nick. I see he’s gone into the arcane details of “natural law”, a fiction I find particularly funny. At least you’re keeping him off the streets!

          • KenS

            Please go and read the article, it clearly states that the ACLU is suing them on behalf of the gay couple, it is up there in black and white, here I will also copy and paste it for you:

            “But ADF says that Friday’s order is just the tip of the iceberg.

            “Today’s judgment affirms the court’s earlier decision that Barronelle must pay a penalty for her faith and surrender her freedom and conscience,” said Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner in a statement. “The penalty and fees imposed today are only the first punch.”

            “The ACLU, on behalf of the same-sex couple also suing Barronelle, has asked the court to award them penalties, fees, and costs, which will financially devastate Barronelle’s business and personal assets—including taking this 70-year old grandmother’s retirement and personal savings,” she explained further. “The message sent by the attorney general and the ACLU to the people of Washington is quite clear: surrender your religious liberty and free speech rights, or face personal and professional ruin.”” quoted from the above article.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Let me say it again: the quote from the ACLU comes not from an official source, but from the ADF, which calls itself the “ACLU of the Christian right”.

            Sorry you have such a tough time reading.

            I’ll say it again: the ACLU does not have standing to sue.

          • KenS

            Let me reiterate if for you again!: the ACLU is not the one sueing, they are backing the couple that is suing! Plain English here: “The ACLU, on behalf of the same-sex couple also suing Barronelle” How hard is that to comprehend from the above quoted sentence! Sorry you have such a tough time understanding/comprehending what you read!

          • Parque_Hundido

            Thank you. Let me iterate, the ACLU has nothing to do with this case. They have no standing to sue. They are not suing. Why did it take so long for you to understand that?

            The ADF is dangling the possibility of further action and further judgments as a marketing ploy. As of today, there is no suit., but the ADF will gladly accept your money.

            You are welcome.

          • KenS

            I have never, ever said that they were suing, I have always been referring to the gay couple as the one that was doing the suing and was basing that on this article. Look back on my posts if you wish, you will not see any that state the ACLU was doing the suing.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You don’t seem to understand. The ACKU is not suing. It is not suing on behalf of anyone. No one else is suing, full stop. You’ve been duped by the ADF in a cheap marketing ploy.

          • KenS

            How many times do I have to say it, just one post up from you I said again that the ACLU is not doing the suing!

            also, check out this non-partisan news feed, it mentions the lawsuit by the gay couple.

            http://lmtribune.com/northwest/robert-ingersoll-curt-freed/image_e406ba10-19b6-58bb-bec5-e0da1191caed.html

  • Joe Carson

    Typical hate and intolerance by the most bigoted and vile people, the liberals and gays, as usual.

  • Steve Adams

    The state, and the church, need to butt the hell out of peoples business…….

  • John Mathews

    Let’s look at this….The gay guy did business with what I feel sure he knew was a devote Christian woman. She did business with what I’m sure she knew to be a gay guy. Neither objected to those transaction, no discrimination took place. It was not the sale of flowers for the gay wedding but her involvement in the wedding that the lady objected to on the grounds that her religious belief is that gay marriage is a sin. Had the gay guy just walked in and placed an order for the flowers and walked out with them neither would have had any problem with the transaction. Let’s say that John Doe walks into the same florist shop and orders flowers for his lover and wishes them to be delivered by the lady to a hotel room where they are to meet. Furthermore, the customer makes it clear that this is an adulteress affair. That too would be against the lady’s Christian beliefs and if she refused to do business on that basis is she discriminating against that customer too? Must we as people give up our religious beliefs simply because we own a business? I hope this lady first converts all her assets to cash, locks the doors to the store, tells them to shove this where the sun doesn’t shine and disappears. If she still needs $$ help, set up a crowd funding site and a few million of we freedom loving people will surely help her out.

  • basspig

    private property. Private business. Government but out.

  • Joe Rockhead

    So i go to a muslim deli and ask them to cater a christian wedding, now they have to do it.

  • Leon

    I was having a dreary day. Thanks for this uplifting story.

  • Sarah Morrigan

    I hope she appeals and wins.

    In America, religious liberty has to be for everyone, or for no one. When somebody is being penalized by the government for holding beliefs that are not necessarily popular or “acceptable” by contemporary societal norms (such as, in this case, a quaint notion that homosexuality is not compatible with traditional Christianity) it is an attack on all Americans and their constitutional liberties regardless of one’s religion or lack thereof. In this case the State of Washington essentially dictated that faith-based disagreement with homosexuality is not an acceptable or legitimate religion (something no government in this country should be in business of deciding – see Universal Life Church v. United States of America) and imposed substantial burdens on an independent business owner because of her conscience. In the end, her First Amendment rights are violated by the State of Washington, in prioritizing a statutory right (to be gay) over a constitutional right (not to have one’s religion be interfered with by the state).

    If this were in a completely different context, even ACLU would have been all over this. Imagine a Jewish caterer being penalized for refusing to service a Jews For Jesus fundraiser dinner. Or imagine a Muslim photographer refusing a client who wants a nearly-X-rated boudoir shoot done. Again, we need to ask ourselves what precedent we are setting. Religious liberty matters more for unpopular, misunderstood minority faiths than for the mainstream, popular religions. But since the Establishment Clause specifically enjoins the government from elevating one religion over another, religious liberty must be for everyone, or for no one.

  • Nancy Rice

    God, prosper her spirit and finances and send those who will defend her. N.

  • http://www.christ421stcentury.com/ PhilDave

    Its past time to bring back the old fashioned political solution of exile or banishment for those who cannot seize and desist from trying to destroy Americas’ basic freedoms. The ACLU, People for the Anti-American Way, et al.,m should all be deported to Libya.

  • anand d’sha

    wo ! What sort of american govt. and its laws and law enforcing judges? It seems any one can blackmail any honest person who think what is good for him , thereby forfeiting the right of an individual . Anyone doing a business is doing for his satisfaction,. If he is denied his right to be choosy about what is right what is wrong, what a pity the lgbt society and the free from religion moment has enslaved the honest Americans.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    This is so horrible the USA is persecuting the religious people in order to support its evil sexual immorality.

    • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

      .
      It’s a wedding ceremony, not sex.

      What are you thinking about, if you are capable of thinking at all?!?
      .

  • ProgsAintHilterJustFascists

    It is illegal to be a Christian in Blue States now.

  • Brent Ritchey

    Glad to see that the courts are taking action to stop discrimination. There are laws regarding what you can and cannot do as a business owner, and if you can’t follow those laws you shouldn’t be in business.

  • Nordog6561

    The LGBTSTFU Mob has spoken!

    So let it be written!

    So let it be done!

  • Eponymous1

    Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They don’t like to have another point of view in the room that they don’t squash and the way they try to squash it is by character assassination and name calling. — David Horowitz

  • ShadowGod

    Excellent.

  • SoundMind

    Choosers of homosexuality are horrid atheists to the core. Not only do their habits stink, but their minds followed their repugnant thoughts into the septic tank. That is, after all, where they feel at home. All laws that mention *sexual orientation* need to be thrown out.