Posted on 01/07/2015 5:13:30 PM PST by steve86
The owner of a Richland flower shop being sued over her refusal to provide services for a same-sex wedding can face claims in her personal capacity, a Benton County Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday.
Barronelle Stutzman and her Arlene’s Flowers are being sued by the state Attorney General’s office and a same-sex couple. Stutzman, a Christian, declined to provide services for the couple’s wedding because of her religious beliefs.
Her attorneys argued the claims against her personally should be dropped, describing them as unprecedented and unjust.
Attorneys for the state and the couple argued Stutzman can be held personally liable under the law.
In a decision Wednesday, Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled that “the clear language of the CPA (Consumer Protection Act) and WLAD (Washington Law Against Discrimination) supports both individual and corporate liability.”
However, he did toss out one of the couple’s claims — that Stutzman aided her business in violating state anti-discrimination law.
Ekstrom also dismissed some of Stutzman’s arguments dealing with the state’s standing to bring its lawsuit.
Ekstrom hasn’t yet ruled on some other summary judgment motions in the case. At this time, trial is set for the spring.
Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/01/07/3346717_judge-denies-motion-to-toss-out.html?sp=/99/177/&rh=1#storylink=cpy
Well, it’s the only one in Washington state. And Barronelle Stutzman is listed as president/chairman. :-)
It would seem to be begging for an appeal, which could overturn some or all of this nonsense. But she has to go through the show trial first, those wheels have to keep on grinding exceeding fine even when an obvious injustice is in progress.
I’m surprised she was not taken out and stoned to death. Maybe next year.
Still boggles my mind to see such madness like this happening. But America is quickly becoming an actively anti-Christian country which requires people to bend down and lick the shoes of evil, or be destroyed.
You know, in this case the “couple” was initially low-key about it and were disappointed, but not militant or looking for trouble. It was others who goaded them into filing the lawsuit.
Haters attack everywhere.
They need to be called what they are, haters.
Lessee, who could that have been?. Was Jesse Jackson there? So many grievances, how's a girl supposed to keep up?
actually that is not true. When we were incorporated we were told that it does not matter much when it comes to lawsuits with closely held corporations.
If I were a florist, baker, caterer or whatever, I would gladly provide service to a couple of deviants, rather than face the inevitable legal hassles.
Of course, I would go above and beyond the call to see to it that it was a "wedding day" they would never forget...
What a horrible thing. Greedy evil people robbing that poor woman of her right of conscience and her property.
Corporations are people.
So basically the court says humans can be slaves
I will pray for her. This is madness.
Lots of small businesses incorporate for tax reasons. What sort of hideous state legislators passed that horrible law anyway? And what sort of evil people would celebrate their “wedding” by robbing some lady of all she owns?
It never is.
“If I knew you were coming, I’d have stepped on the cake.” Something like that?
Washington State ConstitutionNow, what does the underlined mean?
ARTICLE I, SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony.
pierce the corporate liability protections, then it must be that the personal religious protection must apply. Forcing her to sell her possessions against her will because of religious sentiment is
molesting or disturbing in person or property.
Yep. probably an S corp.
The "evil people" are basically the state and the attorneys hired by or employed by the state, more so than the actual defendants (with respect to the actions by the state).
Sorry but you can’t stop at the semicolon. Read the rest of the first sentence and you will see how the black-robed tyrants will justify their sticking it to this woman.
Peace and safety of the state? Dayum, that can justify ANY act of a tyrannical State!
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.