Posted on 02/25/2015 6:51:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
She’s soft-spoken, has 23 grandkids, professes love for the gay customer who tried to hire her for his wedding and helped him find another florist when she politely declined (it was Washington’s AG, not the customer, who filed the discrimination complaint against her), and stands to lose her business and possibly her home if the state keeps coming after her for this. There may be more sympathetic spokesmen for religious freedom out there but offhand I can’t imagine one. The polling on whether businesses should be required by law to cater to gay weddings is mixed, but I wonder how long that’ll last if the Stutzman case breaks big nationally.
The state attorney general offered her a deal: Pay a $2,000 fine, agree to serve gay weddings in the future, and there’ll be no more litigation. No dice, says Barronelle Stutzman.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Thursday that he would accept a $2,000 penalty, $1 for fees and costs, plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation. “Before this case began, my office wrote to Ms. Stutzman, asking her to comply with state law. Had she agreed to no longer discriminate, my office would not have filed suit, and Ms. Stutzman would not have paid any costs, fees or penalties,” Ferguson said…
“Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs,” she wrote, adding that she prays Ferguson will reconsider his position.
Stutzman said she “kindly served (Ingersoll) for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.”
Your move, Ferguson. Now, when was the last time a major Democrat got put on the spot with a question about whether shutting down an old lady’s flower business is a just punishment for her feeling duty bound as a Christian not to participate in a gay wedding? The media’s spent the past week being pressured by conservatives to explain why Scott Walker gets dumb gotcha questions about evolution and whether Obama’s a patriot while Hillary Clinton skates merrily away on questions like, say, when life begins. Here’s another one for the gotcha list. With whom does Hillary side, the left’s pro-gay base or the many, many swing-votin’ Christian grandmas out there in flyover country? Also, John McCormack‘s right that this isn’t really a gotcha. A “gotcha” isn’t just a question whose answer is likely to alienate some constituency no matter what answer is given, it’s a question that’s fundamentally trivial in that it has little bearing on public policy. It doesn’t matter whether Scott Walker thinks Obama’s a true blue patriot. It does matter potentially whether President Hillary thinks legal coercion should be used to compel religious believers to provide services to ceremonies that their faith regards as immoral. Let’s get her on the record. If progressives see gay rights as a zero sum game, Her Majesty should make that clear.
Note the very end here, by the way, when Stutzman’s lawyer refers to her freedom as an artist being infringed. That’s potentially a more effective argument in court than the religious freedom one is. Even if a judge doesn’t buy the “free exercise” claim, how do we justify the threat to Stutzman’s freedom of expression in forcing her to put together floral arrangements for an event about which she’d rather be silent? If the state can compel her to express herself artistically in that case, what other coercive forms of expression can it insist upon from businesses?
someone had to bring it to the AG’s attention. And without standing (an aggrieved party) the case could not proceed.
The GOP should have this woman in front of the cameras as much as necessary. Why aren’t they demanding democrats defend her? Every American should know her face and name.
RE: The GOP should have this woman in front of the cameras as much as necessary.
The GOP is not very good at the PR or propaganda war.
I don’t know how delivering flowers compromises her religious beliefs (I guess she must need to reclaim the stands or something) but a photographer who is forced into photographing a same sex marriage must be present at the ceremony, must zoom in to photograph the kiss, must attend the reception, etc.
They are complete idiots. This issue was 70% in our favor a few years ago and all they talked about was tax breaks.
The 'celebration' of the homosexual 'partnership' (or whatever it is called) is the celebration of the destruction of their eternal souls. Sure, it is still possible that through the Grace of God they will pull out of their nose dive before they die, however it is right for a Christian to refuse to participate in such a 'ceremony'. If you love your neighbor as yourself you are not going to provide aid to your neighbor's destruction - even if it is self induced. She did the right thing to not participate in, or aid, this 'ceremony'.
This woman’s flowers would have been seen at the wedding and likely she would have gotten referral business for it. If her conviction is strong against this unnatural marriage, then she had an obligation to refuse or be seen as a religious hypocrite. She stood up for her beliefs you should be praising her for that. Too few people are willing to take the arrows these days and that is why the soul of this country is slipping out of our hands.
I believe that she should have to right to decline business, just as pet sitters and lawyers do.
Anyone else notice the emphasis on Christianity, when Islam (the favored religion of the White House) is even less tolerant of homosexuality?
There is no freedom in this country. She did not murder or rape anyone. She did not commit a crime. If she doesn’t want to wait on gays, that’s her right. If gays don’t want to buy at her place, that’s their right, but sending her to the courts to ruin her that’s fascism.
What the (rude word for intercourse) has happened to this country?
Still think this is the greatest country in the world? It WAS the greatest country. Not any more.
“She did the right thing to not participate in, or aid, this ‘ceremony’.”
I like the logic of your reasoning. To participate is tantamount to condoning.
I know this isn’t the best analogy, but I think of it this way. Suppose I own a business and I legally sell a poison for killing rats. Now if I get a customer that flatly states he is going to purchase poison from me to wrongfully kill his neighbor’s pets, or himself, or his neighbor. Do I not have a moral obligation to refuse to sell this to him? I think I do, because if I do sell it to him, I am a party to what he is doing....I have enabled it by my actions.
This lady (rightfully I believe) feels that providing her services to a couple that intends to commit an immoral act (homosexual marriage and homosexual acts) makes her a party to that immorality. It puts her in the role of enabler. She is morally correct to refuse her services and, IMO, he protected by the First Amendment because the State is restricting her “free exercise” of her religion. To force her to violate her “free exercise of religion” is to violate her 1st Amendment Rights. Also, hers is a private business and she is NOT an agent of the government. I think that state has gone nuts and any “judge” (at any level of government) that cannot see such a simple thing is a damnable fool.
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.