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!
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????
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Continued Prayers Up! Go Get ‘Em, Barronelle!
Huh??
I can’t see forcing someone to work against their will.
I refused a call for air conditioning service from a known deadbeat. Am I discriminating? Are all deadbeats entitled to service on their air conditioners?
I refused to change a fan motor on a gas air conditioner. Simple job, but if I laid a wrench on it I was married to it and they were problematical.
Forcing someone to work against their will seems unconstitutional on the face of it.
Forcing a person to do labor against their will, and even moreso against their conscience, is outright slavery. This is not a Free Speech case, this is a (rare but important) 13th Amendment case.
An so we of America continue to reap the rewards of repealing the laws that kept the sodomites contained for a thousand years. We even allowed them to change the language to call themselves gay, to call normal people straight, to call same-sex rape of children NAMBLA, to spread veneral diseases in unchecked fashion to the innocent, and to parade themselves on TV as something other than disgusting degenerates. The queers are in a war with Christianity in tandem with the Muslims and they are winning. This is a single case and will not set a precedent even if this Christian lady wins.
>
In February, Associate Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud argued that the Washington Law against discrimination “does not infringe” on any of Stutzman’s constitutional protections.
>
She and her lawyer should have taken it to the extreme to show the stupidity of the law and the court, by asking during opening.
One cannot discriminate vs. food choices, which are ‘legal’ to order take-out? Would it still be illegal if, say, one was gluten intolerant and thus could not eat Italian??
Movies to watch? Books to read? Parts of town to ‘visit’? Whom to vote for?
ALL of these, and more, are discrimination. Yet, one cannot self-determine whom to work ‘for’? Which contract(s)?
I would have asked the court/judges for a list of ‘approved’ activities/choices.
If we can't opt out because we do not wish to do it then the left will find a work around for any other "excuse."
“Oh, your ‘wedding’ was today? So sorry!”