Posted on 07/17/2017 9:19:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
PRAY for this BRAVE Lady!!!
If anyone ever asks me to make a gay quilt for them I will happily oblige.
And then I’ll bury them in it as a bonus!
Every citizen (and non-citizen) has a God given right to opt-out of participation in (aiding and abetting) WICKEDNESS.
This is just mean of her. She should be required to serve that wedding. Does she have -any- idea how hard it would be for them to go find a gay florist? /s
So the First Amendment protects speech, press, assembly, and religion. And she might have a case arguing on at least two of those. But violation of her right to artistic expression????
“But violation of her right to artistic expression????
“
I’d think it would fall under Freedom of Speech.
When government demands that a privately owned store must sell to everyone....that is where Tyranny begins. Is it not a fact that the gay couple could have gone to a myriad of other florists...or is this a deliberate act of activism funded by this Ultra Mean group of gay people?
I’m having a very difficult time finding a Muslim to cater a Barbecue for my Birthday party! Muhammad BBQ, only serves goat and camel!
Diversity, my A55!
Since the gays never went to a muzzy baker to ask for a wedding cake, they can go to hell. This was staged to enable them to sue the normal people.
Then claim freedom of speech, something that is specifically protected. Better yet, freedom of religion. Artistic expression is a lot iffier and something the courts probably won't have a problem ruling against. After all, are people able to walk around buck naked or paint graffiti on my house in the name of "artistic expression"?
“Barronelle Stutzman, also known as the “Christian grandmpa florist,””
This case is getting interesting.
The Christian Grandmpa Florist is actually a grandmother.
Remember this business sign: We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE. One could add ‘for any or no reason’ but it ain’t necessary. That’s the way it should be and would be in a sane, rational world. Government and the courts need to return to and stay within the strict confines of the Constitution.
The thing is, if you “happily oblige” them they will move on to the next person, until they find one that refuses- then sue them.
That’s what all these cases have been about.
I actually recall just such an event. Some clown in New York had a couple having sex on a sidewalk, a reporter asked him what made that art and he replied because I am an artist and I say it is art.
I can't recall for sure if he had a screen but I think he might have so it wasn't exactly in open view.
I guess you don't live in NYC.
I used to not care in the world about these people and even felt bad at one time. Now I despise the gaystapo and gaymafia as they compare themselves to a civil rights movement,act like a bunch of insecure crybabies and are a useful tool of the anti-Christian left. The alphabet soup of the LGBTxyz is nothing more than a hate group and metastatic stain on American society.
Her lawyers likely feel SCOTUS, ie Kennedy, will be reluctant to back free exercise in this case. Framing it as a speech issue, being compelled to use your artistic talent for a purpise you do not support, has a better chance. The state compelling speech is likely to be more alarming if SCOTUS were to support it.
If so then it's an interesting way of approaching it. We'll see if it works.
I am of the opinion that while 1st Amendment freedom of religion is an important component of the defense, there is an equally important 1st amendment freedom of assembly argument here.
The first amendment freedom of speech has been clearly defined in both positive terms (one has the right to speak) and in the negative (one can not be forced to participate in speech). That rule can and has been applied to religion. One can not be forced to worship against one’s will or participate in a religious activity against one’s desires.
That same rule should be applied to the freedom of assembly. One of the reasons for assembly is for the purpose of commerce or business. In the positive, that means we can participate in the exchange of goods and services. Likewise, in the negative, one can not be forced to participate (buy from) against one’s will.
To say otherwise leads to the absurd where the state can force the People to purchase from a special class of citizens or businesses. That would turn the model of free markets on it’s head and would be directly opposed to the founder’s intent.
I believe this argument should be made before SCOTUS as well.
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.