Posted on 02/23/2015 7:38:22 AM PST by wagglebee
RICHLAND, WA, February 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Washington State Superior Court judge ruled this week that politicians have the power to restrict religious actions and expression.
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not.
Stutzman is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington. A business owner for nearly 40 years, she was sued twice for allegedly violating the state's "Consumer Protection Act," because she refused to furnish flowers for a homosexual “marriage” service. The Act denies business owners religious liberty when it comes to sexual orientation, regardless of the owner's sincerely held beliefs.
In his decision, Ekstrom said that the 2006 law is constitutional. "For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled.
He said that "in trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations," legislatures are allowed "to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory." Ekstrom ruled that this applies "even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."
The case goes back nearly two years ago, when Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed asked Stutzman to provide flower arrangements for their "marriage." Stutzman, who had an existing professional relationship with Ingersoll, said in a deposition that “I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ I couldn’t do that, couldn’t do his wedding."
The former customers are seeking $7.91 in damages, to cover the cost of driving to another floral shop, and Stutzman faces up to $2,000 in fines plus the cost of legal fees because of charges filed by the state of Washington.
"Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said when he filed charges nearly two years ago. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
Stutzman, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, has said she will appeal Ekstrom's decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is backing Ingersoll and Freed, declined to comment to LifeSiteNews.
In a public statement, the legal director for the secularist advocacy group's state chapter said that "religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or to harm others because of who they are. When gay people go to a business, they should be treated like anyone else and not be discriminated against."
However, conservative blogger Erick Erickson decried the decision, telling LifeSiteNews that "the judge should have allowed free expression of religion by allowing the florist to opt out, particularly since it was well established she would otherwise serve gay customers."
Erickson, who compared extreme gay rights activists to Islamic extremists in a post about Stutzman's case, also said that "states should allow Christians to opt out of having to provide goods and services to gay weddings."
That's to prohibit things like human sacrifice you moron.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Excuse me?
so why can a muslim in prison be told by the courts he can grow a beard due to his religious beliefs?
The country was founded on religious freedom, that was the reason why people came here in the first place. Now Libs like liberals and libertarians think it’s wrong and don’t agree but it is a fact. They think Christians are imposing their religious views onto them , but what is going on is how Christians are being targeted and having their rights stripped away.
Day by day,hour by hour, comma and period by comma and period moronic activist left leaning judges are stripping away the magnificent work of the founding fathers.
At the same time the FBI is ordered to stop monitoring Mosques.
Nah. Ever since the ‘60s you could tell this was coming.
Unless you are Sikh who wants to wear his or her turban while on duty or a Mooselimb who doesn't want to shave his beard or a detainee at Gitmo who insists on halal meals and a prayer rug.
Otherwise, right.
Let me boil it down for you troglodyte Christians. The Constitution is un-Constitutional.
Judge Eckstrom seem to rule that I can be sued for violating someone’s civil rights because I took the LIFE ACTION of actually closing my business on a RELIGIOUS holiday, and thus could not accommadate the would-be customer.
The service I provide is provided AT THE MOMENT, not one scheduled for a later date, thus my closing denies the customer, because of my religious beliefs, the benefit of said service.
Your, (dis)Honor, go to a very warm Zip Code.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (The First Amendment. to the US Constitution)Rulings like this one in Washington do two things:
She cannot be forced to create a message she disagrees with.
She should try to appeal on Speech grounds.
Worth a shot: the forces of evil are aligned against religious belief.
The homosexual’s right trumps YOUR right because they say so.
But you cannot be made to speak.
She had no problem selling them cakes pies and cookies. But to bake a cake for their “marriage” was to create a message and she has every right to refuse to speak that message.
PFL
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...
How does “His Honor” deny such “free exercise” protected by A-1?
I think that if you close your business only to certain people, your example would be oon point.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So as long as you leave your beliefs at the church door, you are okay?
If there remain no men with convictions and the courage to stand against the blackmail and threats, the very small gaggle of dead-soul oligarchs take over the planet and toss it into the sewer for the next several hundred years. Individuals like John Roberts and John Boehner are the black-mailable shills the oligarchs allow into power knowing they will do as they are commanded to do reqardless of the treachery.
A possible work-around for stores would be to have a subcontractor clause in their contracts. So, they can accept the contract and then sub it to another who doesn’t mind dealing with the client base. Just claim you had to sub it for health reasons.
The judge is wrong. She should appeal on the grounds that the judge is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion.
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.