Posted on 02/16/2017 2:34:51 PM PST by Timpanagos1
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state's antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at houstonchronicle.com ...
It is long overdue that someone do this to a Muzzie bakery or flower shop owner and they get sued.
Not that I saw.
Here is a link to information about the case.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/02/judge-rules-orlando-bakery-didnt-discriminate-anti-gay-customer/
I send this stuff out to a list of friends and family, who don't have the time to read about this stuff on line.
Convert to Islam, quick!
But they won’t rule against mussies denying a blind person to be picked up with their seeing eye dog because to the mussies dogs are unclean. Case dismissed, fine the blind person for a hate crime.
Add: taxicab to that post.
So she sold flowers to the boys for some time, then she refuses a sale and they turn on her...like the jackals they are.
What happened to a taxicab?
I understand this, there are so few gay florists.
Get some Trump supporters to force some libtards to work for them. See how that plays out.
Bad laws and power hungry bureaucrats will result in bad rulings from the court. Not necessarily because the court likes the law but because the court’s job is to decide if the law was properly followed. Remember the agency had already determined its finding of fact. Appellate courts very, very, rarely rule regarding the facts of a case. They rule on whether laws were properly applied. Unfortunately the agency was given the power to use their authority to apply the law and determine when it was violated. That is why Human Rights Commissions and other such agencies are such a danger to personal freedom and association. They have a hand in drafting the laws, codifying the rules, and investigating violations and meting out punishments. What a chance for abuse and political gamemanship.
There is no doubt her religious freedom was violated. But if that question was not before the court they cannot rule on it. She should take her case to SCOTUS.
We need a Muslim test case. But, understandably, gays are fearful of bringing it, cuz the local muzzies might go medieval.
We need a Muslim test case. But, understandably, gays are fearful of bringing it, cuz the local muzzies might go medieval.
I forgot to add to my post that mussies don’t want to pick up blind people in their taxicabs that have seeing eye dogs. That’s okay to the liberal courts because it’s their religious belief not to have to do that.
Article quotes are from the linked article.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-supreme-court-florist-same-sex-wedding-case/
“As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said.”
But these two things are not comparable with providing flowers for a gay wedding. The first two speak to the beliefs of the participants. The objection to providing flowers for the gay men speaks to the behavior of the participants. That the court fails to make this distinction shows how intellectually lazy they truly are.
“As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace,..”
“Every other” Really? Sorry but no barrier was created for this couple. Besides the commercial marketplace is full of barriers. Pricing for one. Availability of goods for another. As far as the simple non-contractual marketing of wares they received equal treatment.
“Michael Scott, a Seattle attorney who worked with the American Civil Liberties Union... had previously told justices he didn’t believe Stutzman’s floral creations constituted speech. By providing flowers for a same-sex marriage, he argued, “she’s not endorsing same-sex marriage. She’s selling what she sells.”
But the court does not get to decide that. It is her beliefs that get to decide that. You know like that thing freedom of conscience.
“I forgot to add to my post that mussies don’t want to pick up blind people in their taxicabs that have seeing eye dogs. That’s okay to the liberal courts because it’s their religious belief not to have to do that.”
That’s an ADA Violation.
Courts ignore. However if it was a Christian cab driver that refused to pick up a GAYSTAPO couple they would impound his/her cab and revoke the license.
“Courts ignore. However if it was a Christian cab driver that refused to pick up a GAYSTAPO couple they would impound his/her cab and revoke the license.”
That would depend on state and local taxicab regulations. If the jurisdiction had a law against discrimination against sexual orientation.
There is no federal law that prohibits a cab driver’s refusal to transport gays.
Refusing to transport a person with a disability or transport their service animal is federal.
How about a nice Islam-action cake - muzzies tossing flamers over a wall, stoning girls and chopping off heads?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.