Posted on 02/17/2017 10:26:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A Washington florist who refused to participate in a same-sex wedding lost a unanimous decision yesterday at the state Supreme Court. The 9-0 ruling rejected her claim to a First Amendment right to exercise her right to religious liberty in favor of the state’s anti-discrimination law. The next step for Barronelle Stutzman will be the US Supreme Court, as KIRO reported lat night:
The Associated Press has more details on the next steps. Stutzman’s legal counsel insists that the First Amendment allows for free exercise of religion, and that commerce does not limit it. The case will have some company on the Supreme Court’s list of cases pending a decision on review:
“It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will,” Stutzman’s attorney, Kristen Waggoner, wrote in a statement issued after the ruling. “Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”
It’s one of several lawsuits around the country — including some involving bakers — about whether businesses can refuse to provide services over causes they disagree with, or whether they must serve everyone equally.
A Colorado case involving a baker who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Lambda Legal. In 2014, the court declined to hear an appeal of a case out of New Mexico that went against a photographer who denied a same-sex couple service.
We’ve been tracking the case of Barronelle Stuztman for at least two years, and the situation remains largely the same. She’s still a small-business owner who knowing serves LGBT customers — including the plaintiffs in this case for several years — who does not want to participate in same-sex marriages. Stutzman doesn’t have a monopoly on the florist trade; there are plenty of other florists who can (and did, in the end) design custom floral spreads for the wedding in question. At this point, she stands to lose everything because of her belief that the First Amendment means that the free exercise of religion includes the right to decline to participate in ceremonies that go against her faith.
If the situation remains largely the same, perhaps the context of it has changed since Donald Trump won the election. Suddenly, artists from singers to designers have refused to work with Trump, his wife, and his inauguration over their political offense at his election. His daughter’s designer products have been removed from stores under protest by Trump’s political opponents. These involve the same First Amendment rights that Barronelle Stutzman makes for declining a business opportunity on the basis of her own conscience.
Government should not force the Barronelle Stutzmans out of business, unless we’re willing to do the same with the Sophie Theallats. The Supreme Court dodged this issue once; they need to take it up now. If they refuse, then Congress and the president need to address this infringement on free market and conscience rights in this term.
Yesterday, I spoke about this case with Kerri Kupec of Alliance Defending Freedom, which has provided legal counsel to Stutzman, on The Ed Morrissey Show. Kerry comes on about the 62-minute mark. Kupec explains why the next step has to be to the Supreme Court, and explains some of the background.
A Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding and they get death threats and a HUGE fine. A Muslim murders a gay man by throwing him off a building and the left is silent.
Nolan
From: Retain Mike Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:13 AM To: WSJ Letters (wsj.ltrs@wsj.com) Subject: The First Amendment and Gay Marriage
The 2015 gay marriage ruling completes a rewrite of our Constitution. The First Amendment says and used to mean, “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….” In contrast the ruling on gay marriage helps illustrates how far the country has departed from first principles.
We are familiar with the term “speech or expression’, which seems an innocuous expansion of the above amendment. However, “expression” enables a nearly unbounded multi-billion dollar pornography industry.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”. Such language severely restricts religious freedom by happening to exclude “free exercise thereof”. Therefore believers pursue a hazardous course to exercise religious beliefs in business and personal lives.
Now we have country in which a woman can express herself in the adult film industry, but cannot start a bakery and exercise her religious convictions by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Formal End to Judeo-Christian America http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/06/30/the-formal-end-to-judeochristian-america-n2018986/page/full
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GAY MARRIAGE http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Bar the doors? http://www.worldmag.com/2015/10/bar_the_doors
6/27/15 Wayne Cordeiro https://www.facebook.com/pastorwaynecordeiro?fref=nf
Nordstrom drops Ivanka fashion line because she is the President’s daughter.
As a Christian professional photographer, do I have to do a pornographic shoot even though it is against my religious values? Pornographers have Constitutional right too—correct?
Nebraska state enabling act:
“That said constitution shall provide, by an article forever irrevocable, without the consent of the Congress of the United States:
First. That slavery or involuntary servitude shall be forever prohibited in said State.
Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”
http://www.childrenslandalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NE_Enabling_Act2.pdf
The florist should have said “The flowers told me they didn’t want to go to a gay wedding.” Fight crazy with crazy.
“AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union
....
That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”
http://leg.wa.gov/History/State/Pages/enabling.aspx
Liberals demand the freedom to boycott Trump but turn around and declare Christians have no right to boycott gay weddings.
Let’s not accuse them of a double standard.
no you don’t have to- you can refuse, pay a huge fine and go out of business and lose your home due to loss of income and become homeless- all for standing up for your moral values- Swell country huh?
Good there is not doubt her First Amendment rights were violated.
Ask any Liberal what Punishment should be unleashed on a Business Person who dares not Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?
What should be done to them, Financial Ruin, Prison, Amputation of their Hand, having their Children taken away and made Wards of the State, what would satisfy them?
It sure looks to me that Kennedy is saying that whenever you go outside the four walls of your home or church you are toast. That is tragic.
“The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”.
or “Sorry, but I’m planning on having explosive diarrhea that day- Maybe the homosexual florist down the road can help you, no?”
As I said before get a gay version of a Shabbos goy to fulfill the order for the shops that don’t want to
They are treating Christians like they will take homos and chop off their heads in public. This is demonization pure and simple. The Left has a bad habit of demonization. It has become a cancer in our nation where shysters exploit it for their pursuit of political power.
Funny how all these religious rulings always favor atheism/homoism? Perhaps....bias? Church being run by State?
Hire a muslim flower arranger. See how it goes then!
The court used the examples of refusing to marry two muslims or two atheists. Of course, that would be discrimination if you consider Islam or not believing in a god a religion. But since when did homosexuality become synonymous with religion? I guess I must have been sick that day. These courts, especially those in Washington State and the 9th Circus, are making up laws as they go along. It has to stop!
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.