13 Attorneys General Join Brief in Support of Florist Found Guilty of Discrimination for Declining ‘Gay Wedding’

StutzmanOLYMPIA, Wash. — Attorneys general from 13 states joined in an amicus brief this week in support of a Washington florist who was found guilty last year of discrimination for providing a referral for a regular customer’s request for the creation of floral arrangements for his same-sex ceremony rather than fulfilling the order herself.

Lead by Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, Attorneys General Luther Strange of Alabama, Ken Paxton of Texas, Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Doug Peterson of Nebraska and Jeff Landry of Louisiana were among those who joined in the briefing to the Washington State Supreme Court.

Govs. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Matt Bevin of Kentucky also added their names to the filing.

“[O]ur country’s history has been one of increasing protections for religious liberty, which include the practice of granting reasonable exemptions from laws that would otherwise force religious adherents to violate the tenets of their religion and thus act in a way they believe contravenes God’s law,” it reads, providing an account of religious freedom in early America and the conflicts that necessitated the protections.

“The right to free exercise of religion—as recognized in both the First Amendment and in Article 1, Section 11 of Washington’s constitution—is not restricted to one’s home or place of worship,” the brief states. “Yet Respondents claim that religious persons forfeit their right to live out their beliefs when they open a business.”

“Religious persons who own and operate businesses retain their free exercise rights,” it continues. “Respondents’ attempt to create a religion-free zone belies their claims of inclusivity and tolerance and is out of step with our free-exercise history. Their attempt to drive a wedge between one’s public and private lives would have shocked those who hammered out the religious-liberty principles [at the nation’s founding].”

As previously reported, Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit March 2012 by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claimed that she violated the law by not fulfilling an order for a same-sex event.

  • Connect with Christian News

Stutzman had been approached by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the floral arrangements 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.

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 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.

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

She appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which agreed to take her case in March.

“Barronelle and many others like her around the country have been willing to serve any and all customers, but they are understandably not willing to promote any and all messages,” ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner, who is representing Stutzman, said in a statement on Friday.

“The briefs that have been filed in support of Barronelle encourage the court to affirm the broad protections that both the U.S. Constitution and the Washington Constitution afford to freedom of speech and conscience,” she explained. “These freedoms protect Barronelle in the same way that they protect an atheist painter’s right to decline to paint a mural for a church, or a pro-same-sex-marriage print shop owner’s right to decline to print materials for a rally promoting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Last November, Stutzman outlined in a Seattle Times article that she had been serving Ingersoll for some time, and it was not the person but the event that posed a problem.

“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. I sold flowers to Rob for years. I helped him find someone else to design his wedding arrangements. I count him as a friend,” Stutzman she wrote.

“If all he’d asked for were prearranged flowers, I’d gladly have provided them. If the celebration were for his partner’s birthday, I’d have been delighted to pour my best into the challenge. But as a Christian, weddings have a particular significance,” she said. “Surely without intending to do so, Rob was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ. As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me. Without Christ, I can do nothing.”

Others that have joined friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Stutzman include The Frederick Douglass Foundation, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the Coalition of African American Pastors USA, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.


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
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Those 13 attorneys are guilty of religious persecution, forcing people to serve same-sex union against the Holy Bible and against one’s clear conscience. Same-sex wedding ceremony is like a Satan worship service to the Christians – something true Christians can never attend or serve/help in any way. Non-christian USA is such a villain on earth, as a man without the truth is always an evil tyrant. Why is it always white Evangelical Christians they prosecute for living out Christianity in the land of America? Why do they leave alone the Jews and the Muslims? They are all monotheists. USA singles out the Christians for religious persecution because Christians alone do not retaliate. May God bring justice upon the USA.

    • Bob Johnson

      Reread the article –

      “Attorneys general from 13 states joined in an amicus brief this week in support of a Washington florist”

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Thank you, I reposted the comment. I hope truth and freedom would win in America. The florist should never have been sued in the first place. At this rate, the West has to denounce all of their ancestors and forefathers and foremothers of all time and cancel out every kind of morality and ban most of classic literature( or change the words), just to uphold their sexual immorality. The atheistic Soviets failed in trying to erase off the reference of God from everywhere; USA shouldn’t follow the foolish and evil path. (Psalm ch.1)

    • james blue

      Should it be legal for a non Christian to refuse goods and services to Christians?

      • NWaff

        you mean like when California and other states ban all government travel and events with states that support religious freedom laws?

        • james blue

          No.

          • Amos Moses

            why not …………..

          • james blue

            Because the question is about refusing goods and services

          • Amos Moses

            yeah ….. and its about singling out those who disagree ………….. like certain states …. due to the states policy ……

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You’ve got a false education by the liberals. Only the Christians are fair to everyone on earth. Americans are unfair and dishonest and greedy and non-transparent just like everyone else if they have no Christian virtues. Equality and liberty is possible only with the Judeo-Christian values. Secularism corrupts mankind with immorality and demands people submission to the evil. Because America lost Christianity, the nation started persecuting moral people for not complying with the culture’s chaotic deprabity. No other empire was this pathetic, with such a noble birth and good upbringing at that. Post-christian is far worse than Pre-christian.

          • james blue

            Sigh

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Go to a near-by Bible-believing church and hear the Word of God to get a life. Don’t waste your life.
            “Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, before the difficult days come…” (Ecclesiastes ch.12)

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You have no idea how many times I rolled my eyes, banged my head on the desk or did facepalm reading her comments.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Yes, if it troubles the individual. Non-Christians always need Christians but Christians do not need others in the West. The Westerners including the Americans have no rights to refuse Christians because Christians are good and moral and Christians formed European nations and created USA for Christian happiness. Look at their flags and monuments and church buildings and hear their national anthems. Refusing Christians is like refusing one’s own good mother and good father and the creators and owners of the West if one would refuse Christians in the West. Only thugs do evil against those who feed them and raised them.

        Those who refuse Christians should get out of the Western nations, not the other way around. The West did not find any other better religion after abandoning of Christianity; the society became only morally chaotic. The land belongs to God and never to Sodomites. Sexual immorality is bad. Anyone has rights to refuse to serve an immoral ceremony that exists for immorality’s sake because immorality is bad. Immorality is not humanity’s duty. Everyone has rights to live out the Christian morality. Present secular Western culture is mentally ill because they apply racial eqality upon sexual immorality. The West needs Christianity for salvation and sanity.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Non-Christians always need Christians

          LOL! You whish!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You secular West is dissolving into nothingness because you ignore the Creator God and the truth and your own history and formation and legacy and your own hard-working ancestors and forefathers and foremothers. You Westerners have nothing noble apart from Christianity. You were nurtured by the Church and learned all the finest things from the Holy Bible. Is this how you repay to the Good for all the good things you’ve received for 2,000 years? Bad descendants. Your sexually confused men can’t even protect their women and children in bathrooms. De-christianized secular West has only blasphemy and immorality and infanticide and suicide as its core value. You need Christianity to live.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Uhm, ancestors and forefathers are the same. Never heard of foremothers though. A new word you invented?

            Nope, I’ve been fed by my parents and healed by my doctor. No church involved. Which finest things?

            Sexually confused men? I’m pretty sure that most men know who they are.

            Seeing nudist all the time. Haven’t seen any in more then a year, so not sure where you get that information from.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Ancestors are more remote. The word forefathers usually include foremothers as well; I just wanted you to know it means both parents. Your parents were fed by the Church, so it involves you. Finest things – every good thing you need and have. Secular men in rich nations got feminized by the liberalism’s feminist education; what they think about is having fun and they do not have honorable sense of responsibility. Nudism is in the fashion. The Westernized Earthlings should wear something more for everyone’s safety.

      • Denise DeChant

        I think that private businesses should be allowed to run their businesses as they wish, so my answer to that would be yes.

        • Bob Johnson

          So the next question – Can Christians refuse to serve Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists?

          • Denise DeChant

            I think that private businesses should be allowed to refuse service. Are you talking about refusing to cater a wedding?

          • Bob Johnson

            I’m talking general refusal to provide services.

            For example, assume you are the sole owner of the only motel in a southern Utah town and you are a very traditional Mormon. A black couple come into the office, can you refuse to rent them a room based on you religious convictions?

          • Denise DeChant

            Good question. I can’t imagine why anyone would refuse service based on race. Is that actually still in the Mormon teaching? This gets harder to answer because it actually could involve life or death if they’re in the desert out in the middle of nowhere, whereas in the article, a florist is merely declining to take part in a certain ceremony.

          • Denise DeChant

            If a business refuses to serve Jews, Muslims and Buddhists they would lose money and risk being picketed. If you were Buddhist, for example, and they refused to serve you, you could easily go online and complain and tell all your friends. The business would probably go bankrupt.

          • Bob Johnson

            So if there are only a few Buddhists in town, we can all tell them to take a hike? Civil Liberty is a matter of the biggest group wins?

          • Denise DeChant

            When has this ever happened? There are all these hypothetical situations that aren’t a problem in reality. Remember, businesses lose money when they refuse customers. They turn down business without a really good reason. As for Jim Crow laws: The Democratic leadership of the south made it the LAW that businesses had to separate blacks and whites. Businesses didn’t necessarily want to do it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to counteract these racial discrimination laws.

          • Denise DeChant

            Actually, wouldn’t that be illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

          • Bob Johnson

            Yes, but that is what you have been advocating – repeal of our civil rights laws. Allowing companies to discriminate against minorities and hoping that economic pressure will cause people to overcome their religious convictions for the almighty dollar.

          • Denise DeChant

            I’m saying that it’s better if the government stays out of private business. First we had Jim Crow, and now we’re having city government bully and bankrupt small businesses for not wanting to participate in a certain ceremony. I’m having trouble seeing where this government interference is helpful.

          • Denise DeChant

            Why would he? He’d lose a lot of money. The free market can be a force for good.

          • Bob Johnson

            Have you googled “Christian boycott”. You do understand that there is a wide movement to boycott businesses that do not agree with certain Christian values. So if the local churches do not like the atheist Buddhists, your businessman will have to chose which group of customers he wants to serve.

            That is why the Civil Rights Acts have in some cases taken this right to refuse serve to different religious groups away from public accommodation businesses. However, boycotting Disney, Oreo, Starbucks, and Target until they stop supporting LGBT is legal.

          • Denise DeChant

            I’ll google it, but it’s not something I’m interested in joining myself. I’m more interested in keeping burdensome government interference out of private business.

      • Fur Hunter

        James…….The instant the law allows a public business to refuse service to ANY group of people, that law will be twisted and stretched to the point where we are back in the 1950s again, allowing businesses to refuse service to black folks, Jews and any other person they don’t like. If you are a public business you must serve ALL the public, not just a part of the public and excluding others.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      Uhm there are no bakeries, or florists in my neighbourhood run by Muslims or Jews,just a kebab business and they have no problem serving homosexuals, and I’m not going to drive around trying to find any. If you run a public business and you refuse the serve anyone coming through your door you don’t like, you are breaking the law. How is that so hard to understand. If you don’t want to serve homosexuals etc, open a private business and display on your window that you only serve heterosexuals and Christians. Let’s see how many customers you get.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. The bullies avoid the minorities and target white Evangelical Christians for prosecutions. It’s a trend in the secular West. LGBT can come and buy bread or flowers in shops, but no one can demand wedding cakes or flower arrangement for same-sex wedding, because same-sex “marriage” is not marriage but living in sin and homosexuality/transgender is sin according to the Holy Bible. The Western auythorities are doing this to subdue people’s conscience and take control of the people. Those who bend their conscience become slaves to the demander.

        Evil regimes do this all the time. It’s a shame that ex-christendom is doing it now against the white Christians. Unbelieving Westerners are like pagans; they are always thirsty for slavery. You guys should bake your own filthy cakes instead of persecuting normal and moral people. God will punish the Western Sodom. You guys haven’t learned anything about the importance of keeping the truth and a clear conscience from WW2. Fools(humanists) return to foolishness(evil). It seems USA’s turn instead of Germany for the sake of immorality instead of nationalism. The West should read the Holy Bible to cease from doing evil.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          What am I wrong about? That there are no shops in my neighbourhood run by Muslims or Jews? Or that if you run a public business and you refuse to serve people you don’t like, those people can sue you? If you walk into a public business and they won’t serve you cause you’re a Christian, you have every right to sue them.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Normal person does not go into contrary places to get particular things done. For example, Christians do not cause troubles for homosexual bakers for not-baking Bible cakes. Christianity and immorality are incompatible forever. But LGBTs come to Christian bakers knowingly and try to ruin them by demanding same-sex cakes, leaving all others in peace. You have grudge against the gentle Christians for not-complying with the sick culture’s abnormal sexual immorality, knowing all the media and enterprises and courts would take your side. It’s called judicial terrorism. The world is facing a new kind of bullying from the Western Sodom. The Western humanists have never given up its evil thirst for enslaving others. Their racist fathers were far better than today’s rich pervs regarding morality.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Secular America is being thirsty for new victims to bully when the entire nation is collapsing from the lack of Christian morality. Christians should never submit to Sodomites. (Jude ch.1)

    • [email protected]

      The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality so using that term to refer to gay people is both outdated and inaccurate. Beyond that I would simply ask….would you also support a business owners ability to cite a religious objection to turn away an inter-racial couple?

      • Amos Moses

        “The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality ”

        more malarkey ………….. and conflating homosexuality with race is racist ………..

        • [email protected]

          It is a very actuate statement. For Sodom and Gomorrah many sins are listed for the cities and homosexuality or a word meaning the same thing is never listed. The entire case for claiming that the sin was homosexuality is based on the men of the city wanting to rape the angels and that interpretation would be like taking a reference to a man raping a woman to mean that all heterosexuality is a sin and should be avoided. Imagine for a moment that the angels in the story looked like women. Would we read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and come away with the conclusion that heterosexuality is a terrible sin? Of course not and so likewise we should not do the same here either. Secondly male on male rape does not mean that the rapist was homosexual. Indeed often the offender in male on male rape, and even more so then, was heterosexual and was using the rape as a display of power and dominance over the victim. Even if they people of Sodom did not know that the men were angels they at least knew they were men of God and so attempting to rape them would essentially be the same as trying to display power and dominance over God, and that certainly offers a clear picture into why they would be seen as exceedingly wicked.

          As to the comparison to race the point is that if a “religious objection” to one is recognized as an excuse for discrimination then the same must also go for the other. you can not pick and chose which characteristics get to be discriminated agasint for a “religious objection”

          • Amos Moses

            imagine whatever you like ………… it is not the recorded event ……… and the rest of scripture makes it more than clear as to what was being punished …………… and it has nothing to do with a “religious objection” …… it is dangerous activity …. to both persons to the point of death ………. and to society in general ……….

          • [email protected]

            It is not imagining, I am dealing with the text and showing very clearly how it does not mean what you claim it means. and if you want to talk about other verses then fine but even if other verses did condemn homosexuality that would not mean it is what is at issue in this account. again as I showed above the Sodom and Gomorrah account is not about homosexuality.

          • Amos Moses

            “It is not imagining”

            YOUR statement ….. ” Imagine for a moment that the angels in the story looked like women. ” … not the story …… and the rest of scripture clarifies again and again what happened and even if you go into the Quo-ran … it has the same details and REASONS for it ……..

          • [email protected]

            I am dealing with the text, the statement ” Imagine for a moment that the angels in the story looked like women. ” is to provide an example to show how wrong it is to draw the conclusion from the story that you are drawing. If a rape between a man and a woman is described as wrong we do not take that to mean that heterosexual sex is wrong. In the same way if a rape between a man and a man is described we should not take that to mean that homosexual sex is wrong. using the logic you apply to the passage if the angles had presented as women and not men we would come away from that passage with the conclusion that heterosexuality is a sin, which again clearly is not what we should have gotten from that passage. the meaning of the passage is exactly the same regardless of if the angles had presented as male or female.

          • Amos Moses

            again …. we do not add to scripture to get it to come out the way we want it to reinvent it ……. you are using sophistry and casuistry ………. it is deceptive and it is lying …… and here is the biggest problem with what you are saying ………… you are saying that everyone in history up to this point …….. is more stupid than you ….. that we all got it wrong ….. and that only you are smart enough ….. and a few of your fellow travelers …… are right …… when you have not one biblical scholar or even just a Hebrew scholar from the past that you can point to that agrees with your view …… and even muslims know your line of thought is BOGUS ……………… you are committing BLASPHEMY ….. you are putting words in Gods mouth that He never said nor intended ……….

          • [email protected]

            And again I am not adding to scripture….I am proving a comparative example to provide an illustration of how your line of interpretation of the passage is flawed. I make the argument from the text and then provide the comparative example as an additional illustration, but the point does not depend on that example, rather it only helps as a further explanatory tool to the case.

            Now you then bring up the objection….”well are you saying everyone else was wrong? what about the traditional thought on this?” I will first say that yes, when saying that the church got something wrong in the past we must carefully examine that claim before just accepting it. However tradition itself is not proof of that traditions rightness. Arguing against change just becasue it does not fit with tradition is a logical fallacy, and we must judge the issue on the merits, not based on how it was viewed in the past. As to why the change now I will note that our understanding of sexual orientation is very recent. when the culture saw it as a crime, a deviant choice, or a disorder it was easy to see the bible as agreeing with that condemnation by calling homosexuality a sin. But now that we see homosexuality as a normal natural variation of human sexuality there is reason to question the assumption that it is a sin. In short if the norm is to view homosexuality as bad then people are going to tend to see the bible as also condemning it even if that is not supported by the text.

            to put it another way, the question of if homosexuality is moral or not got smothered by views that it was deviant, a crime, or a disorder and so people read the verses as condemning homosexuality as opposed to a more textured view.

          • Amos Moses

            “I am proving a comparative example to provide an illustration of how your line of interpretation of the passage is flawed”

            And that is Sophistry and Casuistry ….. it is not exegesis ….. it is flawed and it is in error ……

            “However tradition itself is not proof of that traditions rightness.”

            it is not just “tradition” ……. it is the true exegesis of the text ….. and you have NOT ONE scripture that points to any endorsement of homosexuality ….. and you know it ……… and it is blasphemy ……

          • [email protected]

            you have not once even tried to counter argue the explanation I gave of that passage, rather you are content to just try to dismiss it by calling names. If there is a problem with the argument I made regarding the text then show it. If there was a flaw in the logic of the argument then show it. simply calling it Sophistry and Casuistry does not make it so.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not argue scripture with unbelievers …………. because of what i just told you …… your arguments are blasphemy …… and i am not going to encourage you to your own damnation ……….. but i have warned you …. Sophistry and Casuistry are not proper methods of exegesis ….. if you want to continue to your own damnation …. thats your business ….. but it is not christian to assist you in your efforts …………

          • [email protected]

            I am not an unbeliever nor is my argument blasphemy. If you do not want to discuss scripture with me then don’t your choice. But to declare I am wrong when you do not even engage with the argument that is being made speaks in and of itself.

          • Amos Moses

            “I am not an unbeliever nor is my argument blasphemy.”

            yep …… wrong on both counts …… you do not believe in Christ as you do not believe what He says ….. you want to contradict it …… so not the Christ of the bible …… some other Christ …….. an anti-christ …….

            “Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right.” — C.H. Spurgeon

            you have no discernment ……….

          • Amos Moses

            sophistry
            1. the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false

            2. a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false

            3. subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

            casuistry
            1. specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning, especially in questions of morality; fallacious or dishonest application of general principles; sophistry.

            2. the application of general ethical principles to particular cases of conscience or conduct.

        • cadcoke5

          We have some additional information about Sodom elsewhere in Scripture that is not in the Genesis passage. Jude verse 7 NKJ, ” as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh…”

          • Amos Moses

            little bobby does not want to hear the truth ………..

  • Hugh1

    Make it legal to deny services to Christians and I’m all in.

  • [email protected]

    Would they also support her if she cited a religious conviction as a reason for denying her business service to a Jewish couple or an inter-racial couple? it is the same thing, if a business owner can use a “religious objection” to deny service to a gay couple then we must also allow them to use a “religious objection” to deny service to a couple because of their race or religion. If we do not want to do those things then we must also protect the gay couple. Unfortunately many want a double standard and ONLY want to deny service to the gay couple while leaving in place protections for others.

    • Amos Moses

      being a homosexual is not the same as being of a race or different religion …………. false conflation ….. BTW …. she said ………..

      “If all he’d asked for were prearranged flowers, I’d gladly have provided them. If the celebration were for his partner’s birthday, I’d have been delighted to pour my best into the challenge. But as a Christian, weddings have a particular significance,” she said. “Surely without intending to do so, Rob was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ. As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me. Without Christ, I can do nothing.”

      • [email protected]

        Being gay is part of who someone is just like their race or religion. Discrimination agasint it is discrimination on the basis of a personal characteristic just like race or religion. Furthermore targeting that only at marriage does not change that. If someone said that they would serve a Jewish person or someone of another race but that they would not provide the business service to a Jewish couple or inter-racial couple that would still be discrimination on the basis of race or religion.

        • Amos Moses

          “Being gay is part of who someone is just like their race or religion. ”

          No ….. religion does not intrinsic harm to the believer, race does no intrinsic harm to the person ……… homosexuality causes harm to both practitioners AND society as a whole ………… what you are saying is a lie …………

          • [email protected]

            No homosexuality does not cause intrinsic harm to either the practitioners or society. You have made that claim before but have yet to substantiate that claim in any way and I have asked multiple times for that substantiation. So no, it is not a lie and if you want to claim that it is then show the evidence of this so called “intrinsic harm” that you keep claiming.

          • Amos Moses

            “No homosexuality does not cause intrinsic harm”

            really ……… homosexuals DIE 20 YEARS before those who are not on average …… and it causes no harm ……………. bovine scatology ……………

          • [email protected]

            No gay people do not die 20 years before heterosexual people….that claim is a distortion of old research that is not at all a reflection of reality.

            saying of that study we see “To use my report to support the notion that gay and bisexual sex is somehow the reason why people die early is misusing the data,” Montaner said.

            Montaner noted that his group’s original report was conducted at a time when the HIV epidemic was poorly controlled and treatments were ineffective. Since then, there have have been great strides in treating the disease and preventing its spread, Montaner said. In British Columbia, annual diagnoses of new infections have dropped from 900 in the mid-1990s to 300 in recent years, he said. Deaths from HIV also have fallen sharply, he said.”

          • Amos Moses

            “No gay people do not die 20 years before heterosexual people”

            Oxford Journals Medicine & Health International Journal of Epidemiology Volume 26, Issue 3 Pp. 657-661
            CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            1997? Seriously? A 19 year old research? Right!

            And now we are 19 years later, I have friends who are over 70 and homosexual.

          • Amos Moses

            “A 19 year old research?”

            Really ….. and that has to do with WHAT for it to be correct ……….. 2 + 2 = 4 ….. does not change ….. has never changed ……. so your friend got lucky ….. AGAIN ….. SO WHAT …….

          • Amos Moses

            FYI ………. it is a 2005 study …… CHECK YOUR MATH …………. and it only CONFIRMS the earlier study ………… DUH! …………..

          • [email protected]

            #1 the quote I gave to you was in reference to that study. since you like citing it try listening to what the author said about it ”

            “To use my report to support the notion that gay and bisexual sex is somehow the reason why people die early is misusing the data,” Montaner said.

            Montaner noted that his group’s original report was conducted at a time when the HIV epidemic was poorly controlled and treatments were ineffective. Since then, there have have been great strides in treating the disease and preventing its spread, Montaner said. In British Columbia, annual diagnoses of new infections have dropped from 900 in the mid-1990s to 300 in recent years, he said. Deaths from HIV also have fallen sharply, he said.”

            #2 as I have explained to you many times now the health argument is a losing argument for you. If we are to be concerned with health risks for gay people then that means we should support support for gay relationships that will reduce those risks. For example we know that monogamy and long term relationships reduces the risks and increases rates of sexual health so if sexual health in the gay community is a concern of yours then that only goes to show why we should support same sex marriage. Citing health risks as a reason to oppose the very things that we know lowers those risks is 100% illogical. This would be no different then denying someone access to exercise and healthy food, demonizing them for being unhealthy….and then when they ask for access to exercise and healthy food to reduce the unhealthiness that you are demonizing them for saying that they do not deserve access to exercise or healthy food becasue they are overweight. such reasoning is clearly crazy and yet that is exactly what you are proposing here. you deny gay people the support that encourages safe sexual behavior and then use health problems as an excuse to further deny gay people that support.

          • Amos Moses

            AGAIN ………..SO WHAT …. the conclusion IS …..

            Oxford Journals Medicine & Health International Journal of Epidemiology Volume 26, Issue 3 Pp. 657-661
            CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

            “Citing health risks as a reason to oppose the very things that we know lowers those risks is 100% illogical. ”

            it is logical because ….. YOU AINT MARRIED ……

          • [email protected]

            ah yes…..ignore what the author of the study says…..we should listen to your misrepresentation of the study and ignore what the author of the study says…… Yup not going to fly, I will go with the author of the study.

            Yes gay people who get married are married. and yes, marriage and other forms of support for couples do help to provide more stable, longer lasting, and monogamous relationships. So again….if health risks are a concern of yours then the answer is clear….support things like same sex marriage which increase protective factors and decrease risks factors. denying things that help keep couples together only leads to high rates of short term relationships which in tern leads to high rates of health problems.

          • Amos Moses

            “ignore what the author of the study says”

            NOPE …. the author of the study SAID …………..

            Oxford Journals Medicine & Health International Journal of Epidemiology Volume 26, Issue 3 Pp. 657-661
            CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

            Now he wants to backpedal …. AND YOU are the one who wants to ignore what THE STUDY REVEALED …………. too bad ………. “If the same pattern of mortality were to continue” ……

          • [email protected]

            it is 100% intellectually bankrupt to misapply a study and then continue to do so even when the author of the study says that you are misapplying it. Beyond that is also shows how lacking in support your position is. you are forced to stoop to the level of making an argument using a study when the very author of that study says you are making a false argument. Here is a clue….the research was based on a time where not much was known about HIV/AIDS, how to control it, or how to treat it. the situation is vastly improved. at this point you are only weakening the position of your own argument by attempting to continue to use that even after being countered by the author of the study.

          • Amos Moses

            it is not a misapplication to point out the facts he arrived at …….. i am not using it in the manner you suggest ….. if you are going to ignore the conclusions of the scientific study ….. about your own behavior …… then you are bent on your own destruction …… and your own self justification and self importance in defiance of the facts ……… i will continue to use it to point out the truth to you ….. but you have not refuted one word of it …… you want to go off on a tangent about how it does not apply …… again … bent on your own destruction ………..

          • [email protected]

            there is a concept called Generalizability which is “applied by researchers in an academic setting. It can be defined as the extension of research findings and conclusions from a study conducted on a sample population to the population at large.”

            basically it speaks to if you can take something found in one specific study and then use that to make a broad general claim from that. You are trying to use that study to say that gay people over all will die 20 years younger. the Author of that study says that his work is NOT Generalizable in that way. and why not? well becasue it looked at an urban area during the AIDS crisis when not much was known about it or how to control it, or how to treat it. the considerations are not the same today as they were then. so yes, you are misapplying it, the author of the study says so, and I have explained why that is the case. It is okay to get something wrong, but wisdom is recognizing when that is the case and heeding the truth.

          • Amos Moses

            there is a concept called repeatability in science …… and this CONFIRMS earlier research ….. and just because it does not fit you agenda ….. does not mean it is not correct ….. nor that your denials of what it says valid …….

          • Amos Moses

            Men who have sex with men (MSM) represented 90% of all syphilis cases in 2015, with a 232% increase in diagnosis over the last five years, said the report. More than half of the MSM diagnosed with syphilis in 2015 were also infected with HIV, and over half additionally tested positive for a separate STI. Rates in heterosexuals remain stable but are higher than ideal.

            It’s 2016. Safe sex campaigns and targeted prevention efforts are in place. Sexual health care is free and accessible to both high and low risk groups. So what is going on?

            The basic science can’t be sugar coated. More condomless sex leads to higher rates of syphilis, (and gonorrhoea, chlamydia, HIV … the list goes on). Untreated syphilis means the disease continues to be passed on and leads to potentially horrifying long-term medical complications. Action is needed now to address the reasons behind these patterns, particularly in MSM, the group most affected.

            In MSM, higher numbers of partners is a key reason behind the heavily inflated rates, compounded by the use of apps such as Grindr, venue based and group sex. The reported increased use of Chemsex (recreational drugs used during sex) is also of concern, lowering sexual inhibitions and making the likelihood of using a condom less likely.

          • Josey

            he has to justify his acts, talking to bill is like giving pearls to swine.

          • Josey

            Doctors have substantiated the claim that it is harmful.

          • [email protected]

            No they have not. Yes Homosexual sex can lead to medical complications but the same is true for heterosexual sex. In nether case is harm intrinsic to having that sexual orientation or even acting on it. It is 100% possible to engage in sex with someone of the same sex and never experience any negative medical harm from doing so. thus the claim that the harm is intrinsic is wrong. In both cases the risk of harm can be mitigated via responsible sexual behavior like limiting the number of partners one has and practicing monogamy.

          • james blue

            “religion does not intrinsic harm to the believer,”

            You sure about that?

      • james blue

        Race is immutable, religion is not.

        • Amos Moses

          and what was said was even WORSE …. as it is ANTISEMITISM ……………. and at the same time RACIST ………..

          • james blue

            How is antisemitism the same as racist?

          • Amos Moses

            the comment was both antisemetic and racist …… it attempted to conflate homosexuality and race and being Jewish …… “to a Jewish couple or an inter-racial couple?” ………..

          • james blue

            No it asked if it was okay for someone to use their religion to refuse to serve someone based on their race or religion. It was pointing out the double standard.

            However you still haven’t answered How discriminating against someone because of their religious beliefs is worse than discriminating against someone for their sexuality? Why is it okay to use your faith to discriminate against a homosexual, but not to discriminate against someone of a different faith?

          • Amos Moses

            it is an attept to conflate them all as if it is equal …… and it is not …… SEXUALITY has NOTHING to do with race or religion ……….. and it is both RACIST and ANTISEMITIC …….

          • james blue

            Nobody is claiming sexuality has anything to do with race or religion, I am asking why it is okay to use your faith to justify discriminating against someone because they are gay, but not okay to use your faith to discriminate against someone of a different faith.

            The question does not conflate race and religion with sexuality, it is about how discriminating against one is different from the other.

            Race is immutable, but why is religion not equal?

          • Amos Moses

            “Nobody is claiming sexuality has anything to do with race or religion,”

            YES ……… they are …. and it is RACIST and ANTISEMITIC ……….

          • Amos Moses

            “However you still haven’t answered How discriminating against someone because of their religious beliefs is worse than discriminating against someone for their sexuality?”

            No …. you have to prove how it is in ANY WAY related ……………… it is not ……………..

          • james blue

            discrimination.

          • Amos Moses

            there is a biblical basis for dicrimination for a number of things …… race is not one …. religion more so but not hard and fast ….. sexual sin to the point of turning away ….. more so …. and to avoid the appearance of participation even more so …. so just a blanket assertion of discrimination is not enough for a thinking christian……..

          • james blue

            I already made the distinction between race as it’s immutable.

            Isn’t all sin equal in the eyes of the Lord?

          • Amos Moses

            No ….. they are not all equal ….

          • Denise DeChant

            Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”, but some sins do have worse consequences than others. I think the issue of whether or not to participate in a same sex wedding is (indirectly) discussed in Romans 14:3,5,6,14, & 23.

          • Denise DeChant

            Private businesses should be allowed to refuse business to anyone. The free market will punish them for refusing business.

          • Denise DeChant

            If a business owner did not want to take part in a heterosexual marriage ceremony where one or both of the individuals had divorced, I would support that too. A lot of Christians do not believe in divorce & remarriage.

          • Denise DeChant

            I’m talking about a privately owned business.

          • james blue

            Exactly. A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. A self employed Christian photographer should be able to refuse to do gay weddings and a non Christian should be able to refuse goods, services, employment etc to Christians.

            On the other hand if a christian photographer is employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. Employers should not be forced by law to make accommodations for our faith. It’s nice that employers do make accommodations, but they should be forced to by law.

            When it comes to government employees, even elected ones they should supply all documents and services to all who qualify regardless of their personal beliefs. If they cannot or will not carry out all tasks required of their office or position because of their beliefs they should seek a different position or employment.

            It is up to us to make the sacrifices in life in order to live by our faith, not have others make accommodations for us. If this means certain jobs are not suited to us, so be it.

          • Denise DeChant

            I agree with you about working for the government. I thought they should have offered Kim Davis a different job, and she should have either accepted it or resigned. As for private business, a Christian could tell their boss that they prefer to not work with certain situations, and the boss may agree with their request and have another employee do the job.

          • james blue

            It’s nice when employers try to make accommodations, but they shouldn’t be forced to by law.

      • Bob Johnson

        “being a homosexual is not the same as being of a race or different religion”
        Tell that to a traditional Mormon.

  • james blue

    Quote (above article)““Religious persons who own and operate businesses retain their free exercise rights,” it continues. “Respondents’ attempt to create a religion-free zone belies their claims of inclusivity and tolerance and is out of step with our free-exercise history. Their attempt to drive a wedge between one’s public and private lives would have shocked those who hammered out the religious-liberty principles [at the nation’s founding].”

    ——- ——

    That freedom was lost when big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws made it illegal to refuse goods and service to someone because of their faith. Freedom of religion does not mean forcing others to accommodate or accept our faith. If we want freedom to live by our faith we have to accept that others should be allowed to also. If we want the freedom to refuse to serve others when it conflicts with our faith we have to allow others to refuse service to us because they disagree with our faith.

  • Liberal Elitist

    The amicus brief is a veritable who’s who of hateful bigots.

  • NWaff

    You first need to use your 1984 newspeak translator to understand the secular definition of “discrimination” is when a person or organization applies Biblical principles to determine their sexual ethics. And the secular world opposes these Biblical ethics to such a degree that they are deemed criminal

  • Kevin Quillen

    race is not a choice, queer is.

    • Michael C

      there are several choice-based characteristics that are protected from discrimination.

      For example, it is illegal for a florist to refuse service to a customer just because they choose to be Christian.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay James Scott

    The Stutzman’s clearly want to discriminate against homosexuals and are clinging to their religion as their excuse for doing so. They are hypocrites who cherry pick their religious beliefs in order to discriminate against homosexual marriage but not against heterosexual divorcees marrying for the second, third, or fourth time. This appeal will likely lose just like the Stutzman’s did in court.