Washington Supreme Court to Hear Case of Florist Fined for Declining Friend’s ‘Gay Wedding’

StutzmanOLYMPIA, Wash. — The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a florist who was fined last year after she was sued for providing a referral rather than personally being involved with the same-sex “wedding” of a regular customer who she considered her friend.

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 Freed. She said 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

In January 2015, 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, and agreed that she had committed an act of discrimination.

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

It was soon realized that because of Eckstrom’s declaration that the state and the two homosexual men may collect damages and attorneys’ fees from both Arlene’s Flowers and Stutzman herself, her business, home and bank accounts were in jeopardy of being seized. Attorneys fees alone normally run hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The court also ordered Stutzman to provide full service to same-sex ceremonies, which includes not only accepting the order for the event, but also delivering to the homosexual celebration, and assisting with the specific arrangements and decoration on-site. The following month, Eckstrom ordered that Stutzman pay $1,000 to Ferguson as a civil penalty, and reiterated his initial order that she service the events.

The legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) appealed the ruling to the Washington Supreme Court, which agreed on Wednesday to hear the case.

“This case is not about refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation or dislike for another person who is preciously created in God’s image,” Stutzman wrote in a recent op-ed for The Seattle Times in response to a piece that Ingersoll wrote with Freed. “I sold flowers to Rob for years. I helped him find someone else to design his wedding arrangements. I count him as a friend.”

“I want to believe that a state as diverse as Washington, with our long commitment to personal and religious freedoms, would be as willing to honor my right to make those kinds of choices as it is to honor Rob’s right to make his,” she said.


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
  • Guest

    They are trying to use a ‘free speech’ argument because they realize a ‘religious freedom’ argument will go no where – the customers have the same religious freedom as the business owner and the owner invited the public to come do business with her business – too late to apply a religious test to the responding customers that they have to pass to actually buy the service.

    But the ‘free speech and expression’ has the same problems just from a slightly different angle. The event can’t be separated from a civil rights class as per the SCOTUS and particularly Justice Scalia “a rule against yarmulkes is a rule against Jews”, similarly a rule against same sex weddings is a rule against gays. And the owner is smart enough to realize that inviting the public will mean that their will be responding customers that don’t share the owner’s religious beliefs and practices. Also ruled on by the 9-0 SCOTUS involving sacrificing goats. If the business sells wedding floral arrangements (or goats for slaughter) the customer has a right to use their purchase consistent with their own faith whether that be at a same sex wedding (or a religious ritual sacrifice). The business doesn’t get to decide if the customer’s religious views and practices are ‘right’ or not when dealing with the public.

    The most troubling thing though is the attempt to imply that Ms. Stutzman would have had to make the floral arrangements. No, that isn’t true – she is part of the case because she is the owner that caused the business to operate illegally. The actual fact is that any employee of a business, even the owner-employee, can ask for personal religious accommodation, i.e. if Barronelle doesn’t want to make the arrangements she doesn’t have to, it is the business with the obligation to the customer, not any particular person.

    And in this case we know there was at least one employee that would have happily taken care of this order from counter to completion. And so this case is going to the state Supreme Court with an empty quiver of arguments to get their way.

    The fact is Arlene’s Flowers LLC has been operating legally for the last 3 years by the most common sense way – if you can’t – in good conscience – sell something to the public as the law requires then don’t offer it for sale to the public at all. Pay the tiny fine of $1001, and just continue running the business both as her conscience dictates and as the law requires. Win Win.

  • WesternIowan

    The law prevents selling and buying slaves despite Christianity giving instructions about properly carrying out such transactions (who to buy, who to sell, slaves should obey masters no matter how cruel). Religion in business has been regulated for a long time in America. What about divorced people, which is forbidden, and re-marriage is even more forbidden since it is considered adultery? Yet interestingly these never came up when divorce and re-marriage were permitted. And what about funerals. if you cannot do marriages then why not turn away funerals before marriage for homosexuals was legalized. Seems very hypocritcal and very telling. As a Christian, I’d never dream of discrimating against others in the name of Jesus since that is antithetical to all His teachings.

    • bowie1

      Which bible have you been reading? There is no such “slave” instructions for Christians therein but is a result of false atheist propaganda being passed around to the unaware and the uninitiated.

      • WesternIowan

        Which bible haven’t you read at all not to know about slavery in the bible. Even Sunday school covered it.

        • Shebly

          Christianity follows the new testament before the old testament Read 1-Timothy 1:9-11 about slave traders
          Also if you wish cite the bible you give the chapter# an verse#

        • bowie1

          Yes, slavery was always seen in a negative light and one of the examples would be when Moses asked Pharaoh to “let my people go”, and through many plagues from God refused but finally relented when the Egyptians first borns were killed. Even then he had his soldiers go after them only to be drowned in the Red Sea, freeing God’s people.

      • Cady555

        Yes. There are rules about how to acquire slaves, who can be enslaved, how slaves are to behave, and how badly an owner may beat his property. Read your book.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      “If you cannot do marriages then why not turn away funerals before marriage for homosexuals was legalized.” Marriages and funerals have always been lawful, also for unrepentant sinners, not limited to homosexuals. If you are going to pervert the definition of marriage though, you should pervert the definition of a funeral too, for consistency.

    • John

      Whether or not you agree with her personal conviction is not the issue here. You also make a horrible assumption of hypocrisy when you have no evidence to support it. You only have presumptions that these business owners have the same convictions as you and must violate some of them though you have not established that either. You really are pretty arrogant.

    • John

      Galatians 3:28 ESV
      (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

      Colossians 3:9-11 ESV
      (9) Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices
      (10) and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
      (11) Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

  • Shebly

    I have no idea how the court will rule in this case but religious freedom, freedom of speech freedom from racial discrimination are enumerated rights while a same sex wedding is un-enumerated right in the past enumerated rights were more important than un-enumerated rights.
    A Christian workaround which be acceptable to many Christians is to either post sign in your shop that only man/woman marriage is Christian and any profits from a same sex wedding sale will be given to a group that supports man/woman marriage in the couple name or include the text in your contracts. If your still asked anyway it is a setup then perform the service as always just give profits away as the sign said . If forced to deliver the product the OWNERS could wear t-shirts with biblical quotes about homosexually such as 1-Timothy 1:9-11 which should be protected under free speech and freedom of religion especially if chapter# and verse# is included. Note you should start requiring contracts and prepayment for all large purchases because some may order and then not pay to try to punish you.

    • Carcosa

      ‘I have no idea how the court will rule in this case but religious freedom, freedom of speech freedom from racial discrimination’ only two are rights in the Constitution, the reason you can’t discriminant against someone because of their race is because of laws like the civil rights act

      • Cady555

        Yes. The Constitution says nothing about racial discrimination. These laws are passed by legislatures, and are every bit as enforceable as drunk driving laws, school arrendance laws and every other law.

    • Guest

      I can’t think of anyone filled with the Spirit who’d think those were ‘Christian’ solutions but rather ways to demean and denigrate what Christianity is about.

      The Christian solution is to run a legal business in compliance with conscience and the law:
      🔅Don’t offer the public things that can’t be sold to people of all faiths.
      🔅Reserve the invitation of sale of things that can only be sold to customers with certain beliefs and practices to those groups by operating as a private club or non-profit – both business styles that can religiously discriminate.

      And this case is about Washington civil rights and its constitution which clearly enumerate the rights and the customer’s protection from actions done with the excuse of liberty of conscience.

      If this owner had just run their business legally, or when they failed in that paid the tiny fine when they made a mistake and subsequently run it legally none of this would have even happened.

    • acontraryview

      “but religious freedom, freedom of speech freedom from racial discrimination are enumerated rights”

      All rights have restrictions. There is no carte blanch right to religious freedom, freedom of speech. Where is “freedom from racial discrimination” an enumerated right?

      “A Christian workaround which may be acceptable to many Christians is to either post sign in your shop that only man/woman marriage is Christian and any profits from a same sex wedding sale will be given to a group that supports man/woman marriage in the couple name”

      While they owner could certainly donate any profits to whatever group they care to, they would not be able to do so in the couple’s name without the couple’s permission. I’m not aware of any groups that DON’T support man/woman marriage, are you?

      “If forced to deliver the product the OWNERS could wear t-shirts with biblical quotes about homosexually such as 1-Timothy 1:9-11 which should be protected under free speech and freedom of religion especially if chapter# and verse# is included.”

      That would certainly be a course of action they could take.

      “Note you should start requiring contracts and prepayment for all large purchases because some may order and then not pay to try to punish you.”

      A signed order is a contract and I’m not aware of any bakery that would not require payment in full prior to the delivery of the product.

      In addition the sign you suggested, they should also include:

      * No wedding cakes if ether of the couple has been divorced for reasons other than adultery.
      * No baby shower cakes for an unwed mother
      * No bridal shower cakes if the couple is having sexual relations
      * No wedding cakes if the couple will be taking their vows before a god other than the Christian god

      Don’t ya think? I mean just so that they are fully following Biblical teachings. They certainly wouldn’t want to come off as hypocrites by only citing one biblical sin as having an objection to – even though same-gender marriage is never actually discussed in the Bible.

      • Cady555

        Yes. If they refuse to make cakes for people who had sex before marriage, their problem would be solved, as they would do no weddings.

        • Guest

          They follow Christianity as it pertains to THEM, not as it pertains to others. They don’t judge what others do in their own relationships, it’s what THEY will have to take part in THEMSELVES. That’s why they have no problem serving gay customers for anything except for what pertains to a gay WEDDING.

          • Guest

            And since Arlene’s Flowers LLC had an employee that would have gladly taken care of this order that excuse evaporates.

          • Guest

            No it doesn’t, because it’s still her business and her name behind it, Rob.

          • Guest

            A business she deliberately put at arm’s length by making it an LLC. Sorry, her involvement means her, not other people’s. If she as an employee didn’t want to do the job she can ask and get religious accommodation. But the business can’t do that – by making the offer and inviting the general public to come do business with it it did so knowing that everyone walking in that door had their own right to their own religious beliefs as per the state constitution and the law.

            There can be no religious discrimination in a public offer, the universal right to religious freedom shields the customers from any religious test the business can toss their way.

          • Guest

            Rob, you keep repeating the same things, even though all your talking points have been discredited. How’s that Seattle, WA anti-Christian group you and the gaystapo are running?

          • Guest

            And you do realize I archived your last set of false accusations, right? And your abject failure to even give a hint of their veracity?

            Stop lying about me, it goes against the commenting guidelines.

          • Guest

            Please, Bob, archive all my posts. They speak the truth.

          • daniwitz13

            You understand and yet you don’t understand. You understand that ‘everyone walking in that door has their rights’, what you don’t understand is that the “people” that want a flower arrangement, are NOT walking into the shop wanting what is made right there, (if they did, they will get it) NO, “they” are asking for an arrangement NOT made yet, NOT in the shop and at a date of their choosing, NOT of the Florist time. Anything in the Future is an unknown. Anything for the Future requires a contract, of which no one can be force to sign. Under your understanding, if these “people” wanted this Florist to make an arrangement one, two or five years from now, they cannot refuse, and with no contract. Please quote in the Law, that it pertains to the Future, much less the next day. Note: If a business does NOT “open” the next day, can a Person be accommodated then? NO. Not even the very next day, mush less one month from now. This is business Rights. Pity

          • Guest

            There is no requirement that it be ‘right there’ in statute or precedence. The state civil rights law is quite clear, the customer has a right to ‘full enjoyment of all’ services the business offers.

            Of course no one can be forced to sign a contract, but they can be fined for not obeying the law that said they can’t turn away a customer because of their membership in a civil rights class, a requirement they knew before they opened the business. Same way the government can’t ‘force’ a business owner to have proper signage on the exits, or keep their kitchen clean. What they can do is fine them when they do it wrong and eventually revoke their business license with repeated violations.

            Point of fact even in this case the owner has not violated their conscience and entered no contract they didn’t want to sign, they have only been fined for breaking the law.

            Using your rationale any lodging business could refuse a customer since they have to sign a contract before taking residence. Sorry, I’ve heard this excuse before but that’s all it is, an excuse and won’t fly in this court anymore than it has in any other.

          • daniwitz13

            You just said that there is no such requirement. Period. What then is full enjoyment? When the business is “closed”? One year from now? When one is “out for Lunch”. A business has no Right to “close” his shop for a year? You say that no one can be forced to sign a contract, period. Then you say that they have to accommodate, what, with no contract? Then you bring in signage. That has nothing to do with accommodation and you know it. “People” do not put a sign on their foreheads to tell a business of who or what they are. Business cannot discriminate what they do not know or ask. No one comes into a shop and say, I’m Gay and I want to buy something. You are clueless. Pity

          • Guest

            Please. This is about unlawful discrimination. If they aren’t open for lunch they aren’t open for lunch for anyone – no discrimination. If they don’t make reservations over a year ahead for anyone – no discrimination.

            And i was offering other ways that businesses are regulated by government where they ‘need’ to do certain things and if they don’t there will be unfortunate consequences for the business, just as in the case of civil rights. I’m sorry if that confused you.

            And since its obvious you don’t have a clue about how these cases work or the law in general its probably best we just not converse anymore beyond my assuring you your ‘contract’ excuses are worthless in any court of law.

          • daniwitz13

            So you are tell all the business people here that ‘contracts’ are worthless in Courts. It seems that you do not know how Courts work? No contract, you don’t have a case. The State License board will advise any business to have signed contracts for everyone’s protection. You do not have an answer for, how does anyone know who are Homosexual in order to discriminate? Signage on the body? You don’t know that you are clueless from what you say. Pity

          • Guest

            See? You can’t even follow the conversation. No one said that contracts were worthless (well other than you of course). I said no one was ‘forced’ to enter a contract, not that contracts were worthless.

            But you obviously don’t even understand civil rights laws – if they don’t know the person is homosexual then they aren’t discriminating because they are homosexual. But in all these cases the business owner either already knew, or they actually asked who the wedding couple was.

            The pity is that I’m wasting my time even responding to you. See ya.

          • Guest

            I said your excuses about contract was worthless, not that contracts are worthless. Odd isn’t though that calling me ‘clueless’ is considered ok, but my saying your excuses are ‘worthless’ is not?

            But you obviously don’t even understand civil rights laws – if they don’t know the person is homosexual then they aren’t discriminating because they are homosexual. But in all these cases the business owner either already knew, or they actually asked who the wedding couple was.

          • daniwitz13

            It is NOT an excuse to use contracts, which you have called ‘worthless’. You will need to explain how ANYONE can recognize a Homosexual by sight? Can you pick one out in a crowd? No. Would you know if a Homosexual was right next to you anywhere? No. Ask any Judge if he can recognize a Homosexual by sight? He can’t, no one can, even their Parents don’t know until they are “told”. Do everyone believe everything one says? No. Clueless to me means that the Person is intelligent but lacks perspective on the issue. You define your word ‘worthless’. Pity

          • Guest

            Your question makes no sense, how can someone determine a religion, ethnicity, military status or other civil rights classes by sight? I don’t even see why it’s important to you in these cases since in all of them either the business representative already knew or asked or guessed.

            You do realize all sexual orientations are equally in the civil rights class? It doesn’t matter what one you are you can’t be refused a public offerbecause of it.

            It’s about equal treatment under the law.

          • daniwitz13

            You cannot answer the question and that is why you bring in other people. If there was an answer, you would gladly give it. But you can’t therefore you push it off. Like saying, ‘it doesn’t matter’. If I ask a question about mothers and you can’t answer, you come back with what about the fathers. It is a method to not answer what you cannot answer. I did use ‘by sight’ which is the gist of it. However, they cannot provide valid “proof” of it. Ethnicity and Military status can easily be “Proven”. Religion can be proven that it exist because it is in two of our Major Documents. It is recognized by it. If you can’t provide any “proof” of Homosexuality, it is an unknown and cannot be recognized, therefore a fraud to receive from Govt. Pity you do not understand. Pity

          • Guest

            Why would anyone need to prove they were a sexual orientation? Your question doesn’t make any sense – all sexual orientations are protected equally – it doesn’t matter which one any one is.

            And no no one can prove their religion, it can only claimed. But all religions are protected equally so, again, it doesn’t matter which one.

          • daniwitz13

            If someone sues you for $135,000, and just says he is Gay, Would you just pay it with no “proof” that he is Gay? Anyone would lie for $135,000. If a Black Man sues you, he can “prove” it to a Judge. You can’t answer and play clueless. Pity

          • Guest

            Ok you don’t understand a couple of things:
            1) the couple put in a complaint, they have no input into a judgement amount, the BOLI sets that and they are routinely large, e.g. In 2012 a Christian dental worker was awarded over $375,000 because her boss had her go to a Scientology-related seminar.
            2) the business admitted this was religious discrimination against a same-sex wedding, nothing needs to be proven, that wasn’t even in dispute. That in itself is a violation of the law and the state constitution.
            3) the discrimination has to be because of the civil right, everyone has a sexual orientation, a race, a veteran status, a sex; everyone is equally protected and almost all violations are because the transgressors admits they were discriminating like this business owner

          • daniwitz13

            So you are saying that you would be happy to give “someone” $135.000; Because a Judge “believes” and takes the “word” that “someone” is what he says he is. And If you ask the Judge for a little “proof,” will say that there aren’t any, just pay. You are also clueless about SSM and discrimination, and even this Judge and even the SCOTUS. You all don’t know, and you all don’t know, that you all don’t know. I can explain it but it is useless on the clueless. It is not a cop-out, just a fact. You can’t answer a simple question, you will NEVER be able to understand logic. Pity

          • Guest

            Hmmm it obvious you are just being deliberately obtuse, you know as well as I do that the business owner freely admitted they were discriminating and why, it’s not in dispute.

            When you want to have a honest discussion let me know.

          • daniwitz13

            You do NOT want an honest discussion. You have your Gay agenda, blindsided and brainwashed. Nothing of logic that I may say will make a dent in your clueless mind. I’ve been at this for 20 years. It is probably best for you not to know the truth anyway. You are what you are and you can be happy without the truth. You don’t need doubts about Lifestyle. Your mind is too young. Pity

          • Guest

            Haha “gay agenda”. This discussion is about illegal civil rights actions by a business.

            Like I said, you don’t even want to talk about the issue at hand. Let me know when you do.

          • daniwitz13

            What you can’t understand is that there is NO discrimination in this case. In actual fact, SSM is a form of discrimination, which again you don’t understand. Pity

          • Guest

            I don’t understand it because its lie. The people of Washington state removed the unconstitutional licensing restriction on the civil contract of marriage before the US Supreme Court did. Marriage equality is the opposite of discrimination.

            And, of course, has nothing to do with this case – this is about wedding floral arrangement and there is no law or license or contract that governs who can or can’t have a wedding.

            The pity is you trying to twist equal rights into being discrimination in some odd way.

          • daniwitz13

            You can’t understand what you cannot understand. SSM is NOT equality, it is inequality and discriminatory but this is something that you won’t and can’t understand. Your mind is to limited and cluttered with LGBT thoughts. Pity

          • Guest

            Using doublespeak won’t help. Everyone being able to do the same thing is the opposite of discrimination no matter how you try and spin it.

            There is only marriage, SSM and OSM for anyone and everyone.

            But then you can think what you like but it has nothing to do with the legal issues of this case.

          • daniwitz13

            Homosexuality is an Orientation, right? Well how many Orientations do you believe are in our Society? Only one? Why only one with Rights? Is it equality to select only one among Hundreds of Orientations? And this one, 100% cannot recognize. Pity

          • Guest

            No there are only two sexes resulting in one, or the other, both or none possible orientations.

            But what does that have to do with anything? This is about marriage.

          • Cady555

            A business chooses its products. It does not get to choose what the customer does with the product. The business is no more “participating” in the wedding than the gas station that sold gas for them to drive to the venue.

          • Guest

            Indeed they do, and customers don’t get to define what that service is. This is the equivalent of someone suing a kosher deli because they can’t get a ham sandwich.

          • Cady555

            No. It would be like a deli that sells ham sandwiches refusing to sell a ham sandwich to a person with a Jewish sounding name.

            The bakery makes fancy decorated cakes. The customer wanted a fancy decorated cake.

          • Guest

            Nope. It’s like someone going into a kosher deli and redefining kosher to include a ham sandwich.

          • Cady555

            Sorry. No. More like:

            Customer: “The customer in front of me just ordered a fancy decorated cake. I would like to order the exact same thing.”

            Store owner: “No. I will make that fancy decorated cake for some people. But not you.”

            The product is identical. The customer is different. That is discrimination.

          • Guest

            But see it’s not the same thing, because it involves redefining what marriage is. The gay activists who target these Christian businesses know just what they’re doing. They don’t just order cake or flowers. They order things that they know will push the order out of the bounds of what the provider offers.

          • Michael C

            They order things that they know will push the order out of the bounds of what the provider offers.

            They order the things that other customers also order. The same things. They order the same things that the businesses regularly provides for other customers. The things are the same. The things are no different. Only the customer is different.

          • Guest

            It’s not the same thing, Michael because it’s for a completely different event – an event they don’t provide service for. These same businesses have gladly served gay clientele, so this isn’t a gay issue. It’s a marriage issue.

          • Michael C

            It’s not the same thing, Michael because it’s for a completely different event

            So a thing is made different by it’s surroundings? A turtle might be a turtle in a basket, but something else entirely in a bucket?

          • Guest

            Is a T-shirt that says “God hates f***s” just any kind of T-shirt? Would you print one of those? I know that I wouldn’t, and I’d gladly be sued over it, too.

          • Guest

            No one asked for anything that hasn’t been advertised and sold to others before.

          • Michael C

            Just a minute ago you admitted that the physical product was the same as what the business regularly offers to other customers, but it is transformed into something different by the event.

            Now you are talking about a product that a business wouldn’t offer to any customer regardless of their sex, religion, race, gender identity, veteran status, familial status, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.

            Tell me. Which conversation would you like to have. I’m not going to engage you in both.

          • Guest

            I haven’t changed anything. There is a difference if a cake is just a cake or if it contains an offensive item on top of it. It makes a difference if it’s being used to celebrate a let’s-kill-the-gays-event (something I would refuse to bake a cake for), or if it’s used to just have some cake.

            Look, you pull this pseudo-offended stance every time I point out your hypocrisy. The analogy between the “God hates f***s” T-shirts and gay “wedding” cakes stands.

          • Michael C

            There is a difference if a cake is just a cake or if it contains an offensive item on top of it.

            1) What “offensive item” are you talking about?

            Do you think that these couples are requesting those dolls on top of their cakes?

            Guess what, if a customer asked for a bride/bride cake topper and the bakery did not stock them, the bakery is under no obligation to put one on a cake.

            Either you don’t understand the topic of conversation or you’re intentionally attempting confuse the subject with fabricated details.

            The analogy between the “God hates f***s” T-shirts and gay “wedding” cakes stands.

            The reason it feels like neither of us seems to understand what the other person is saying centers around what you’ve been referring to as a “gay wedding cake.”

            2) Please tell me what you think a “gay wedding cake” is.

            3) Could this problem be solved if these gay couples simply agreed to only purchase “straight wedding cakes?”

          • Guest

            These couples specifically asked for “gay wedding cakes” or “cakes for their gay weddings”. That’s to what I’m referring.

          • Michael C

            These couples specifically asked for “gay wedding cakes” or “cakes for their gay weddings”. That’s to what I’m referring.

            Okay, that answers question #2 (and possibly question #3?) A “gay wedding cake” is any cake that will be served at the reception after the wedding of a gay couple.

            By that definition, a “gay wedding cake” could be identical to a “straight wedding cake.” If the only difference is who’s getting married, then what the cake looks like is irrelevant.

            So, a regular wedding cake magically transforms into a “gay wedding cake” when purchased by a gay customer.

            The refusal of service has nothing to do with the product requested and everything to do with who the customer is.

            I’m going to try to ask you again;

            Could this problem be solved if these gay couples simply agreed to only purchase “straight wedding cakes?”

          • Guest

            The cakes merely need to be referred to as “wedding cakes”. The problem arises when same sex couples specify that a.) it’s for a gay wedding, and b.) ask for a same sex union topper. Some Christian bakeries have been making the cakes sans toppers and feel okay with that. Some do not. It’s a faith issue, and no two people’s faiths are necessarily alike, just like consciences can vary on what they deem acceptable. That’s why there can’t be a hard and fast rule over this.

            By the way, Rob has stated that you are a lawyer hired by a same sex union group and that you are here advocating on their behalf. Any truth to this?

          • Guest

            “By the way, Rob has stated that you are a lawyer hired by a same sex union group and that you are here advocating on their behalf.”

            Of course I have never said any such thing. Flagged as a violation of posting policies.

          • Guest

            You know your past profiles have you flagged as a serial flagger, don’t you? And yes, you did claim that about Michael C and you and I had an argument over it. Your comments were deleted and you were banned under one of your many Purple Grape alts.

          • Guest

            You can lie all you want, I’ve never even talked to Michael C outside of one of these forums. You probably know more about him than I do. But trying to say I said something about him when really you are just trying to ad hominem him, that’s a reportable offense.

            Purple Grape? What the heck is that even?

          • Guest

            I didn’t say that what you said about Michael is true. I just said that you said it. I know you lie. You were whining because posters (including myself) like Michael C, but we call you out on your hypocrisy and rudeness and lies. That’s why you falsely attacked him.

          • Guest

            And I didn’t say it. But the truth evades you.

            Flagged.

          • Guest

            Keep flagging. You may get posts deleted short-term, but Disqus marks you as a serial flagger and you eventually lose your account. How many have you had now? I know it’s more than 12.

          • Guest

            You don’t understand how it works. Discus doesn’t deal with this, this blog does. They actually enforce their guidelines, you can probably ask afchief about that, somewhere other than here.

          • Guest

            This site deals with specific posts, but Disqus deals with the actual account and can close it down anytime they want. Ask one of your alts about that.

          • Michael C

            The problem arises when same sex couples… ask for a same sex union topper.

            Please cite any source that mentions a refusal of service on the basis of a “cake topper.”

            I have never read a single account of a baker refusing to sell a gay couple a cake on the basis of what the cake looked like or how it was decorated.

            Not one. …but I’m open responding to your sources.

            By the way, Rob has stated that you are a lawyer…

            Who’s Rob?

            No, I am not a lawyer. No, I don’t work for any sort of advocacy group.

            …are you making things up? Your questions are strangely paranoid.

          • Guest

            I don’t have a link, but I read an article where one baker agreed to bake the cake, but without the topper.

            Rob is Purple Guest, and of course I’m not fabricating anything. I believe Rob (Purple Guest) is the one fabricating that claim about you, and I called him out on it. He said that I was a fool for being polite and defending you because you were a lawyer representing a gay advocacy group and were paid to post.

          • Michael C

            I don’t have a link, but I read an article where one baker agreed…

            Okay. um. okay.

            If a baker doesn’t sell bride/bride or groom/groom cake toppers, they don’t sell them.

            Can we now agree that these bakers are not refusing service on the basis of the product? They will make a cake for a straight couple but will refuse to sell that exact same cake to a gay couple. Are we, at least, in agreement about that fact? Yes or no?

            Rob is Purple Guest, and of course I’m not fabricating anything.

            Oh, okay. I don’t know anything about that person. We don’t know anything about each other aside from comments here.

            Can you please show me what Purple Guest said about me? Was it on this thread or another?

            Please show me the quote. I will happily correct them.

          • Guest

            I believe Purple Guest’s comment got deleted but I can look for it if I have time. It was months ago. Purple Guest was complaining that you are given preferential treatment by other posters and by Charisma mods, and I explained that you were not given preferential treatment, but that you were treated politely because you were polite and sincerely carried on discourse. He went nuts and said you were paid to post, that you were a gay activist lawyer sent to these sites, in order to spread your message. He’s got at least a dozen accounts with the same purple avatar and Guest moniker.

          • Guest

            Oh and of course I (he calls me Scott, calls me Rob, even a witch for a while) think your notes are great. But he is on to talking about other things now since your questions have gotten too unavoidable.

            Yes back wen I bothered posting on the other board I would just replace the blocked account with a new one with the same name and icon – few other than the obsessed even knew it was a different Discus account. I don’t bother anymore there since buying some ebooks by the prominent contributors and finding out what their ‘other face’ says.

            But he does stalk me and makes personal attacks and comments. They can be hard to ignore but I just deleted my replies to him here and in the future will just hope that people take his person attacks for what they are, deliberate attempts to side rail a discussion he’s losing.

          • Michael C

            I thought I might more likely get responses to my questions if the were numbered and bold. That was a bit overly optimistic.

            Their fervid interest in your personal life could be troubling. I wouldn’t think it inadvisable to limit interaction.

          • Guest

            One more thing: how about looking up the Bethany Paquette case (search under this week’s time stamp on Google) and let me know what you think.

          • Michael C

            She alleges that she was refused employment on the basis of religious belief, correct?

            In the United States (where we live), discrimination on the basis of religion has been prohibited for more than half a century.

          • Guest

            Then when will it be enforced?

          • Michael C

            I don’t imagine the U.S. government will be enforcing any of our laws in British Colombia.

            If Canada is anything like the U.S., I imagine that people are generally not penalized for a crime until it has been proven that they have committed one. The fact that we’re still talking about Barronelle (for three years, now) is evidence of the time it can take for some issues to be resolved in the court system.

            Does any of this have anything to do with the topic of this conversation?

          • Guest

            Yes – discrimination.

          • acontraryview

            There is no requirement that a bakery offer a wedding topper of two people of the same gender. Nor was that request ever made in any of the cases.

            What is a “gay” wedding….besides the obvious that it would be fabulous?

          • acontraryview

            Please cite which couple asked for a “gay wedding cake”. What is a “gay wedding cake? How is it different than a “straight wedding cake”?

            “or “cakes for their gay weddings”.”

            They wanted multiple cakes for multiple weddings? Interesting. I was not aware of any case where the customer asked for more than one cake for more than one wedding.

            What is a “gay wedding”? Are you suggesting that when inquiring about a wedding cake that they customers said: “This is for our gay wedding”? What basis do you have for that statement?

          • gogo0

            so, would a “gay” wedding cake be one they sprinkle gay dust on or something? if the gay wedding was cancelled and some straight couple wanted the gay cake for their wedding, could they use it or is it incompatible with their wedding?
            if a “gay” cake is fundamentally different from a “straight” cake, then unless you know the specific sexual orientation-related intention of the retailer/manufacturer/laborer, you could be wearing a “gay” shirt or pants right now.

          • Guest

            So by your logic, a T-shirt that says “God hates f***s” is just a T-shirt and anyone should be forced to print thousands of them, no questions asked, right?

          • gogo0

            wear a tshirt that says ‘god hates f*gs’ (aka, a shirt with a hateful message) to a gay wedding and compare that to the response you would likely get bringing a ‘gay’ wedding cake (aka, a cake that has no intrinsic message) to a straight wedding.

            youre comparing apples and bicycles

          • acontraryview

            “The analogy between the “God hates f***s” T-shirts and gay “wedding” cakes stands.”

            Actually, no, it doesn’t. One involves printing a specific message on a shirt. The other involves making a cake that does not require that a specific message be put on the cake. The analogy is flawed.

          • Guest

            Hey, it’s just a T-shirt. What do a jumble of words mean? What does it matter what it’s used for? Those little cake toppers are meaningless. So are the flowers, and photographs, right? And why not sell crosses to the KKK? So what if there’s no message on them, and so what if they’re going to be blasphemously burned. They’re just wood, right?

          • acontraryview

            “Those little cake toppers are meaningless.”

            A bakery is not required to carry any specific type of cake toppers.

            “And why not sell crosses to the KKK? So what if there’s no message on them, and so what if they’re going to be blasphemously burned. They’re just wood, right?”

            You’re really grasping at straws here which shows the weakness of your argument. Are you suggesting that when members of the KKK come into a lumber store they are going to announce that they are members of the KKK and that the wood they are buying is going to be used to build a cross that is subsequently burned? If so, the owner would be free to turn away the customer as political viewpoints are not a covered category.

          • Guest

            so his argument is any reason the business thinks something is different can be treated by them as the same situation basically saying they can act regardless of the customer’s civil rights anytime they want.

            I wonder how any court would view that argument?

          • Guest

            No it’s for a wedding. The business can no more discriminate because of the sex of one of the lucky couple than they can because of their creed, race, military status or any other civil rights class.

          • Guest

            Gay “weddings” will never be real weddings.

          • Guest

            Interesting opinion that every customer has a constitutional right to disagree with and still accept the freely made public invitation of sale.

          • Guest

            Interesting opinion that a fringe group thinks they can redefine a sacred institution for the rest of us.

          • Guest

            Interesting idea the Christians are a fringe group. That’s the double edged sword of religious freedom, everyone has it, including the customers.

          • acontraryview

            How you choose to define marriage is up to you. No one can redefine it for you. You might want to consider dropping your false victim stance. it reeks.

          • Guest

            It’s not up to me. I didn’t invent marriage. It’s up to God. As far as being a false victim goes, I’ve never claimed to be a victim of any kind. You have some serious anger issues.

          • acontraryview

            Well if it’s up to God, then no fringe group can redefine it, can they?

            God didn’t invent marriage. Man invented marriage.

            When you suggest that a group has the ability to redefine what you view as a sacred institution, you are indeed playing the victim.

            What have I said that would cause you to conclude that I have “anger issues”?

          • Guest

            Man didn’t invent marriage.

            You need to look up the term victim. I’d say people whining over not being able to buy a cuppycake is false victimhood. It’s not like they’re being thrown off buildings by ISIS.

          • acontraryview

            “Man didn’t invent marriage.”

            Of course man did. It is something that man created. It has meant different things at different times in different locations. It is totally a construct of man. Some people have chosen to attach meaning to the word “marriage” based upon a book written by man. But marriage was created by man.

            I’m unaware of anyone whining over not being able to “buy a cuppycake”. What examples do you have of this?

            I’ll ask again: What have I said that would cause you to conclude that I have “anger issues”?

          • Guest

            Marriage by definition cannot be defined by man. That’s your problem – you don’t even understand the terminology over which you’ve chosen to argue.

          • acontraryview

            Clearly, since there are laws governing marriage and those laws were written by man, then man can define marriage, at least from a legal standpoint.

            I’ll ask again:

            I’m unaware of anyone whining over not being able to “buy a cuppycake”. What examples do you have of this?

            What have I said that would cause you to conclude that I have “anger issues”?

          • acontraryview

            Well then it shouldn’t matter, should it?

          • Guest

            When people are being thrown in jail and lose their livelihoods over pretend weddings, it most certainly does matter.

          • acontraryview

            What people have been thrown in jail over pretend marriages?

            What people have lost their livelihoods over pretend marriage?

          • Guest

            The MacArthurs, the Kleins, Kim Davis, etc.

          • acontraryview

            I’m not familiar with the MacArthurs. Would you fill me in on that?

            The Kliens are operating their business out of their home. They have neither lost their livelihood nor have they been in jail.

            Kim Davis was put in jail for defying a court order. Not because of a “pretend wedding”.

            Do you have any actual examples of people who have been thrown in jail over pretend weddings or people who have lost their livelihood over pretend marriage?

          • Guest

            You’ve been given them, but are pretending not to see them, just like you pretend same sex unions are real marriages. Kim Davis was exonerated because she was unjustly thrown in jail for upholding state law in the state to which she swore allegiance.

            A gay business owner was recently charged with persecuting a Canadian Christian woman for not hiring her because of her faith. The tides are turning.

          • acontraryview

            “You’ve been given them, but are pretending not to see them,”

            No. You have failed to provide any examples of people being put in jail or losing their livelihood because over “pretend marriages”.

            “Kim Davis was exonerated because she was unjustly thrown in jail for upholding state law in the state to which she swore allegiance.”

            One, she was not unjustly put into jail. When one defies a court order, being put in jail is an outcome. Two, she swore to fulfill the obligations of her job without “prejudice”. She failed to do so. Three, she was not “exonerated”. She was released from jail because she agreed to abide by the judge’s order.

            “A gay business owner was recently charged with persecuting a Canadian Christian woman for not hiring her because of her faith.”

            Actually, no, that is false. A woman has begun a case against an organization that turned her away. The owner has not been charged with anything, and if he is charged, it would certainly not be a charge of “persecution”. It would be a charge of discrimination. Something which you support people being allowed to do based upon their personal belief system. Based upon your stated beliefs, you are, no doubt, supporting the owner’s position, yes?

          • Guest

            You’re just here to argue and obfuscate the facts. My guess is you’re a middle aged, lonely woman looking for someone to talk to.

          • acontraryview

            “You’re just here to argue”

            That is false.

            “and obfuscate the facts.”

            What facts have I obfuscated?

            “My guess is you’re a middle aged, lonely woman looking for someone to talk to.”

            What would lead you to that conclusion?

          • Quantz

            The Kleins should have been fined extensively and thrown in jail but they were not.

          • Guest

            That’s what this gay business owner thought when he discriminated against a Christian employee. He got sued. Eventually, this will turn around, the gaystapo will be the ones in jail and losing businesses. Their persecution and hate won’t go unchecked forever.

          • Quantz

            There is no gaystapo – it does not exist. And you will find that discrimination based on a person’s sexuality is gradually going to become more and more frowned on by everyone involved.

          • Guest

            Of course it exists. There are extremist gay activist groups whose goal is to take down Christianity and enforce their viewpoints on the rest of the world.

          • Quantz

            It exists only in the minds of anti-gay bigots. Homosexuals have no interest nor motivation in destroying Christianity. Christian supremacists, however, are intent on keeping homosexuals from simply living their lives free of faith-based hate and discrimination.

          • Guest

            Yeah, yeah, that’s what you say until you start throwing Christians in jail, try to get them fired, refuse to hire them, and try to ruin their business. Actions speak louder than words and gay extremists have made their agenda clear.

          • Quantz

            Within the walls of your church you are free to hate and discriminate against anyone you like to your heart’s content. But if you try that in an arena controlled by the government, you’re going to be jailed/fined for human rights offenses. It’s pretty straightforward. People have the right to be protected from religions.

          • Guest

            Actually, no Christian is “free to hate”. It’s against God’s commandments to be hateful, just like it is also against God’s commandments to participate in homosexuality or any endorsement of homosexuality. US law guarantees freedom of religion. You and your activist friends do not have the right – thus far – to push your belief system on Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone. That right may be taken away via the US government system – so far it stands – but God’s law supersedes man’s law any day.

          • Quantz

            If denying basic human rights to others is part of your faith, you are free to do so. Until you try to legislate that same behavior. And I’m not an activist, just a human rights enthusiast.

          • Guest

            Who’s been denied human rights? You already have basic human rights. As Dr. Ben Carson says, you are asking for SPECIAL rights that supersede and interfere with rights of all others, and that isn’t fair.

          • Quantz

            No, allowing homosexuals to marry isn’t a special right – it is a equal right, it doesn’t affect the rights of others in any way, and is absolutely fair. I find it funny that you want all these rights and freedoms to exist only for married people, and when they say they want to get married, you won’t let them!

          • Guest

            It’s a special right because it redefines marriage for everyone else.

          • Quantz

            Which affects your own marriage how?

          • Guest

            Since marriage is an institution, redefining it redefines all of society.

          • Quantz

            Nothing new there. Marriage has been around a long time, in fact it predates Christianity. Times change. Attitudes change.

          • Guest

            Of course marriage pre-dates Christianity. It pre-dates ALL religion, all government. That’s why it’s a sacred institution, and does NOT change. It has always meant union between one man and one woman.

          • Quantz

            You’re serious? Never heard of polygamy? Very popular in your Bible. Of course marriage changes

          • Guest

            Polygamy was never endorsed in the Bible. Jesus Christ said that He always intended marriage to be between one man and one woman.

          • Quantz

            The point isn’t who did or didn’t endorse it, the point is that marriage wasn’t always one man and one woman.

          • Guest

            Marriage always was MEANT to be between one man and one woman. The fact that others have chosen to pervert that doesn’t make it good or acceptable. It merely points out how evil mankind can be.

          • Quantz

            Those are simply matters of your opinion. Christianity does not own marriage and never has and so you are in no position to say what’s good or bad, right or wrong. You don’t even require religion at all to get married, you can simply go down to the justice of the peace and get married .

          • Guest

            Did you not bother to read my post? Of course it’s not a matter of opinion – not yours, not mine, not the gay extremist’s. And of course Christianity doesn’t own marriage and never has. Marriage was instituted PRIOR to Christianity. Don’t bother responding to my posts if you’re not going to read them.

          • Quantz

            Support traditional marriage – because your daughter is worth at LEAST 2 goats and a camel.

            What a farce. Gay people have the right to make a commitment to one person like everyone else.

          • Guest

            I have no idea why you’re rambling about animals, but I’m not surprised that you’ve gone batty. Gay people have the right to face the consequences for their actions, as do all people, which is why Christians and observant Jews will not touch anything at all to do with same sex unions – we do not want God’s judgment falling on us.

          • Quantz

            No, I’m not surprised the reference went right over your head. You’re going on and on about traditional marriage, well, at one time, traditional marriage involved bartering with goats, camels, and livestock.

            You want marriage to be the one man, one woman model set forth by your religion, but yours isn’t the only religion, and anyway religion isn’t what dictates marriage, as you’ve been told. All you do is sit there and waggle your finger at the nasty gays and go “shame shame shame, God’s gonna beat you up for this” – well, there’s a very good reason I don’t worship a God who thinks that way.

          • Guest

            Now you’re just repeating what I’ve told you – that my references have gone over your head. There is nothing in the Bible about bartering animals for wives, and the fact that you think there is, only proves how ignorant you are of what that Book contains. Additionally, traditional marriage existed long before Christianity or even Judaism existed. History teaches that, but you are in denial because you are so set on bashing the Creator who instituted marriage, and His followers (Jews and Christians) who uphold that.

          • Quantz

            Please tell me where I said anything about bartering animals for wives being in the Bible.

            Just because it is not in the Bible does not mean it did not occur.

            I find it very interesting that you’re willing to admit that marriage predates Christianity but still think you speak on behalf of “The Creator” regarding the “correct” meaning of marriage. Marriage does not require a creator at all. It is wholly unrelated to a creator.

          • Guest

            Of course marriage predates Christianity. The Book of Genesis explains things from “the beginning” and predates Judaism, Christianity, and all religion.

          • Carcosa

            all of whom decided that their personnel feelings were more important than the law

          • Guest

            I believe you mean “personal feelings”, and no, it’s called conscience. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, unjust laws SHOULD be broken.

          • Carcosa

            no they shouldn’t, you don’t get to decide which laws to follow, it’s all or nothing

          • gogo0

            the only definition that matters here is that of the word “cake”.
            a cake remains a cake whether it is for gays, straights, dogs, or barbie dolls. the definition of marriage is entirely irrelevant to the law for businesses serving customers equally

          • Guest

            A cake remains a cake, but the problem is with the definition of “wedding”.

            Speaking of bigotry, a gay man was recently sued and forced to pay thousands to a Canadian Christian woman he discriminated against. He didn’t want to hire her because of her faith. Now THAT’S discrimination.

          • gogo0

            yes, it is ALSO discrimination and it is wrong. is your ultimate point ‘but they do it too!!’?

            and regarding the cake, you seem to be in the minority here that feels a cake has no intrinsic policical or social message attached to it. if supporting gay marriage is your concern, then find the earlier post detailing all of the other things you ought to also rally agains (second weddings, divorce, etc). those people also require their ‘sins’ to be held against them

          • Guest

            You missed the point. Just as someone has the right to refuse to make a “God hates f***s” T-shirt (something I would refuse to make), one also has the right to refuse to provide a service for a same sex union. You don’t get to choose if a ham sandwich is kosher or not. You don’t get to choose how Christians regard marriage.

          • gogo0

            if they dont want to put a same-sex wedding topper on a cake, they simply dont stock them. there is no law compelling them to make a flagrantly gay cake for anyone same as there isnt a law compelling a tshirt maker to print obscene phrases on a shirt. if a customer asks for a standard product that is stocked or made to order for others to purchase, then the customer cannot be turned away because they are gay, or black, or too short, or a christian.

          • Guest

            No kidding. You obviously have missed the issue. Christian businesses are intentionally being targeted and are not being asked for just a cake, or just flowers, etc. etc. They are being asked to participate, by their services, in something that is as abhorrent to their faith as a ham sandwich in a kosher deli. Just as a kosher deli would have no problem selling kosher items to any customer, so a Christian business has not problems selling what they provide to all customers.

          • gogo0

            oh, i didnt realize that the cake makers are being forced to attend the wedding and personally take part in the ceremony… because they arent. they cook a pastry and sell it.

          • Guest

            Just like a T-shirt that says “God hates f***s” is just a T-shirt, right?

          • gogo0

            now youve bounced back to it being a distinct and explicitly offensive product. you need to choose one argument and stick with it.
            either the cake says gay stuff (like your explicit tshirt) or it is a cake that a straight christian couple could use at their own wedding

          • Guest

            I’ve used one argument, but it’s gone over your head. It doesn’t matter if the cake says anything, it matters for what purpose it’s used – then the issue is no longer a cake, or a shirt, or a flower, but its intent. Gay clientele have been serviced by every Christian business in question, except for one issue, and that is over marriage, and that’s because of the DEFINITION of marriage that is older than Judaism, older than Christianity, and older than Islam. That’s why marriage is an age-long, sacred institution that a fringe group does not get to define for the rest of us.

          • gogo0

            i’ll admit that I wasn’t getting your tshirt argument, but it turns out because it was complete nonsense. a comparison that would actually work with your ‘intent’ argument would be a blank tshirt that a group intends to print ‘god hates f*gs’ on themselves. just like a plain wedding cake that a group intends to place a same sex couple atop it. now that we’ve got that nonsense out of the way…
            I know that your intent is not to have given up christianity’s self-stated ‘ownership’ of marriage, but you have in that last comment. that being the case, please show me the pre-judaism citation that contains the definitive definition of marriage. you wont because there isn’t one, and even if there was, it wouldn’t matter. language and customs evolve, or do you think there were tax benefits to being married when it was originally ‘defined’? how about marriage after divorce? that used to be called ‘adultery’, but neither that change nor the ‘intent’ behind it seem to bother the wedding cake crowd.
            the constitution of the united states guarantees the same freedoms to all US citizens -including gays. if you don’t like it, you can make your anti-gay position clear and hope that scares them away. if it doesn’t, then you’ll be forced to serve them in accordance with the law.

          • Guest

            People aren’t inanimate objects, like a T-shirt, or a cake. They have hearts, souls, minds, and spirits, and thus INTENT is what matters.

            This is about the DEFINITION of marriage, not about the definition of divorce, or the definition of adultery. This isn’t about other religions or personal beliefs since marriage existed long before any of those. It’s about how the One who created marriage defines it, and it’s between one man and one woman.

          • gogo0

            so if their intent is to sell a cake, there is no problem.

            if we’re going by the bible’s immutable definition of marriage, then you must support polygamy like abraham and others practiced.

          • Guest

            They have sold cakes to gay clientele, so the cake alone isn’t the issue. Intent is. Is a cross maker justified in refusing to sell one to the KKK?

            The Bible specifically says that polygamy is not acceptable. Before Abraham even existed, God defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. He then reiterated that definition in the New Testament. God has never been okay with polygamy.

          • Guest

            As you notice the other Guest just tosses out word salad to black hole the discussion with useless side threads. Obviously this isn’t like asking the business for something they don’t offer for sale at all but he said it so you would correct him.

            His barrel of red herrings is very large.

          • Guest

            You need to stop whining, Rob.

          • acontraryview

            How can they justify serving gay customers? Doesn’t that directly conflict with 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 5:11?

          • Guest

            No.

          • acontraryview

            “9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.”

            Seems pretty clear. How would they be able justify serving homosexuals based upon this admonishment?

          • Guest

            You have your answer in verse 10. We have to deal with all kinds of people, and deal with them in love. That’s different from joining up with them in something, like marriage, business partnership, etc.

          • acontraryview

            So not only dealing with them, but taking money people who are known to be sexually immoral and who may well claim to believe in God, and using that money for your personal benefit would be OK? How can you possible get that from the verse?

          • Guest

            There’s no crime in doing business with others who are not of the same faith. The problem isn’t doing business with others, it concerns what that business is.

          • acontraryview

            What if the customers claim to be Christian?

            “it concerns what that business is.”

            Nothing about that in the cited verse.

          • Guest

            Sure there is. You have to read the whole passage, not cherry pick.

          • acontraryview

            Would you please point that to me?

            I’ll ask again: What if the customers claim to be Christian?

      • Paige Turner

        Another “work around” could be to abide by the law and not concern yourself with things that aren’t anything to do with you. Share your toys, love one another and be nice as much as you can.

        Thats Christian isn’t it?

  • acontraryview

    It will be interesting to see how the court rules on this matter.

    • Guest

      I don’t think there is really much choice – it can’t allow ‘just a little’ religious discrimination by a business in a public offer, or just allow the kinds someone might feel is ‘ok’ against ‘icky’ things. Any court that says that an owner of a business can put their right to religious freedom over the rights of the customers in a public offering has just shot the first amendment through the heart,

      Though I suspect that is actually the long game goal of the people that fund these efforts, all indications are the courts aren’t fooled. Washington, like many other states since 1777 has a ‘liberty of conscience’ clause that specifically limits how far such conscience excuses go and draws the line at using it as an excuse to act without regard for the law or the rights of others.

      The court really has no choice, they will rule against the florist shop and since it is being done via the state ‘sexual orientation’ civil right there is no appeal possible to the federal courts.

      And with today’s 8-0 ruling on the full faith and credit clause covering ‘gay’ adoptions, I’m sure they will have more to concern themselves. Even the Family Policy Institute of Washington has dropped talking about Arlene’s Flowers LLC and decided that the boogieman of ‘men in the ladies’ room is a better way to make money and to bring out the vote this election year.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    When a gay couple brings legal action against a so-called Christian-owned business because of discrimination, this is labeled as Christian persecution.

    When a gay couple foregoes a lawsuit and takes to social media to make public the discriminatory treatment at the hands of a so-called Christian-owned business, this is labeled as Christian persecution.

    When businesses in Mississippi exercise their freedoms by placing signage in their shop windows that reads “We Do Not Discriminate,” this is labeled as Christian persecution.

    Anyone else see a pattern here?

  • Straight Shooter

    I guess the poor lady learned that some people are just fair-weather friends. This ought to be a lesson to all Christians. Be careful who you trust.

    • Carcosa

      the lesson is to remember that your religion is not above the law

  • Semp

    Robert Ingersoll must feel like a real man, going after an elderly lady, dragging her through the mud. Nice people.

    • Carcosa

      if you can’t pay the fine then don’t do the crime, it’s really quite simple

    • Paige Turner

      $1000

    • Guest

      The state Attorney General was the first to file suit, the couple did later for less than $10 to insure it wasn’t just a complaint between the business and the government but also between a business and customers.

      There was an employee of Arlene’s Flowers LLC that would have gladly taken care of this customer – a nice person would have let the business sell what it advertised to the public legally.

  • Max

    Decent people have always been harassed by riff-raff. Nothing ever changes. She won’t get justice in this world, but her persecutors will have to face the ultimate Judge.