preferred Bob Ferguson Head Shot.2

Arlene’s Flowers Response to Attorney General’s Settlement Offer

Print pagePDF page

After a ruling this week that Arlene’s Flowers violated the law by declining to decorate for a same-sex ceremony, Washington’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, who initiated the legal action against the grandmother and small business owner, offered a settlement of $2,001 if she would agree no longer do any weddings and not to appeal the ruling.

Below is the response to the offer from Mrs. Stutzman:


Picture1ARLENE’S FLOWERS
1177 Lee Blvd.
Richland, WA 99352

February 20, 2015

 

 

Attorney General Bob Ferguson
1125 Washington St. SE
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504

 

Re: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman

 

Dear Mr. Ferguson,

Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.

As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years.  I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. 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.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver.  That is something I will not do.

I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob 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. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.

 

Sincerely,

Barronelle Stutzman

 


 

To share your thoughts with the Attorney General on his lawsuit and the settlement offer, call his office at 360-753-6200 or contact him here.*

Honor Mrs. Stutzman by being respectful, but please be heard.

 

278 replies
  1. Jouel
    Jouel says:

    Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Love your neighbor as yourself. This summarizes God’s laws and in turn the relationship the Lord Jesus Christ wants with each person. God never said to love your neighbor and endorse or participate in their sin. God wants us to interact and love upon those who do not know Him as well as encourage those who already believe (spiritual gains). However, while Jesus was with sinners, he did not participate in committing their sins nor did he endorse what they did was right. Remember the woman at the well whom Jesus spoke to about living water. Jesus certainly spoke to the Samaritan woman which was not a custom in those days to initiate a conversation with a Samaritan woman. Samaritan’s were not liked by some groups. But Jesus did interact with the woman at the well and he acknowledged her sins–but did not endorse her behavior.

    Reply
  2. Lawrence Beerbower
    Lawrence Beerbower says:

    If a law is designed to prevent discrimination and yet does not protect the exercise of Religion it is unconstitutional and should be removed. I am sorry people are so ignorant and do not see what this type of anti discrimination law does. It is a direct violation of the First amendment when used in this manner. To say otherwise shows just how uneducated you are on the Constitution. there are many places who who would have been more than happy to do the event for the couple. An yet the state wants to force Christians to violate the ethics of their faith. JH says homosexuality is a part of nature, but yet fails to understand what exactly the natural world is and what that concept is. The fact is it goes against procreation. Cannibalism is a part of nature and we do not socially accept that. It is unnatural in the fact it does not produce offspring and never will. So there goes your natural theory in flames. Also the Bible itself condemns it in many passages.
    One must not treed upon Religious freedom to protect a behavior. The issue was not providing flowers to the couple, but to service their religious event which is clearly a violation of her faith.
    You see I clearly see the issue here.
    I am not a Christian, but I am educated enough in Christian theology and the Bible to know their faith condemns it and it violates the law of their God.
    So providing services to such an event is a violation of her faith and she should have the Right of conscious to say no and turn them away.
    This is not about culture we are talking about Religious freedoms and the government violating those freedoms under the pretense of discrimination. This is governmental over reach into social matters they have no authority over. This is a matter of the people not government. Better get really familiar with the frame work of the United states Constitution.
    Because it also states what state rights are. Try reading the Bill of Rights. Which tells you the Rights of the people. Take a bit of an educational stroll and learn what unalienable Rights are. It is obvious by many of the comments here most have no clue what that is.

    Reply
  3. R Biggs
    R Biggs says:

    It is reasonable to assume that every day she was in business, Arlene’s Flowers sold flowers to people who were sinners. Men who cheated on their wives then bought them flowers. Men who beat their wives and then bought flowers to say they were sorry. People who drink, steal, lie and cheat also occasionally buy flowers. But the good folks at Arlene’s Flowers need not worry, because they are not morally responsible for the actions of their customers. Arlene should not feel the need to qualify her customers on ethical grounds. Likewise, there is no need for Arlene to worry about selling flowers to gay people, even if they plan to enjoy those flowers at a wedding that Arlene objects to.

    Reply
    • Joel
      Joel says:

      She said she was glad to use her talent for everyone, including the sodomites. She just didn’t want to have to cater to an event that goes against her morals. She didn’t want to sin herself. A fascist movement is trying to force her to do something against her religion.

      It’s like forcing a black Republican to cater to a KKK rally. Or force a person who survived the Socialist movement holocausts to cater to an event that honors Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

      It’s sad to see the LGBT movement being just like the Socialists. How soon before they’ll start demanding to murder people who don’t agree with them as well?

      A public school official in Indiana was recently suspended for advocating the burning of all Christian businesses over these issues. This intolerance and projected hate needs to be exposed.

      Reply
  4. Louise Christensen
    Louise Christensen says:

    Wow, what awesome moral force Baronelle Stutzman displays.

    This experiment of normalizing the abnormal is showing its cracks when wedding caterers are being demonized and bankrupted for not wanting to participate in the experiment. Extreme defensiveness covers an insecure position; why the Taliban-tactics of extreme legal violence against a seventy-year-old grandmother and her small business? Are all sexual orientations defended this vociferously over a perceived slight, or just same-sex ones?

    The Middle East isn’t the only place where it is okay to persecute Christians for their beliefs.

    PS The media keeps reporting that Ms. Baronelle refused to sell them flowers, which is not accurate. She was politely refusing to take on the job of catering the gender-neutral wedding in accordance with her traditional beliefs, and, you might say, fining herself by not making money for that job. Forcing people to do extra work is slavery. Catering has always been up to the caterer to decide whether he or she can do it or not for whatever reasons the caterer may have. At least, I’ve always asked if they are able, willing, and wanting to do the job. I definitely don’t want any slaves working for me. We teach our kids to have their ‘no’s respected when being asked to do something out of their comfort zone; why weren’t Ralph Ingersoll and Curt Freed able to respect a friend’s no?

    Reply
    • JH
      JH says:

      There needs to be some clarification on the points you bring up.

      First off, there is no “experiment of the abnormal” here. Homosexuals are nothing new to humanity or the natural world by any stretch of the imagination. Go ahead and Google homosexuality in the natural world and see what you get. It’s a naturally occurring relationship and has been since life started. The only thing abnormal is how so many people can be completely unaware of the world they live in and the people they live around.

      This isn’t about the Middle East. This is about anti-discrimination laws in America. They have been established for very good reasons. You forget your history if you can’t summon the concepts for why they are essential laws of the a nation that prides it’s self on freedoms. Those are freedoms for all and they are not subject to Christian’s acceptance of validity. Those same laws protect you and your beliefs.

      The fact that she chose not to take the job because it was a ‘gender-neutral wedding’ is precisely the issue here. If she couldn’t take the job because she was overbooked or understaffed that would be one thing. But she didn’t. She refused the job (politely) purely on discriminatory motives. Being polite doesn’t make discrimination any less bigoted.

      And, on a final note; the couple she displayed a polite manner of discrimination against did not file the case against her. Washington’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, initiated the legal action and offered her a settlement offer that would have made the matter go away. She listened to her supporters and is now out of business.

      She seems like a nice lady. She should have taken the settlement. Unfortunately, her support lead her astray. Hopefully she can find another job that wont subject her to any job jeopardizing moral conflicts.

      Reply
      • JS
        JS says:

        You are advocating anti-discrimination, but in only one direction. You are advocating freedom, but in only one direction. And you are completely disregarding one of the most fundamental freedoms of all: freedom of conscience.

        The opposite of freedom is coercion, which is exactly what you are endorsing here. Freedom entails the right of people to live and think as they wish. It does not entail forcing those who disagree to participate. You would coerce Ms. Stutzman into making concessions, and in a rather hat in hand fashion. Who has she coerced? No one. She simply said, “Per my conscience, I cannot participate in this.”

        The 1st Amendment is a powerful one, guaranteeing both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Not just the freedom to privately embrace one’s deeply eld religious beliefs, but to act on those beliefs — “Congress shall make no law regarding…the free exercise thereof.”

        You would silence the 1st Amendment (only for one group), which clearly states that one has a right to their own opinion, their own religion, and the unimpeded right to practice their religion, in favor of something merely inferred from the Constitution. The Constitution makes absolutely no reference to marriage or the nature of marriage, and opinions will vary on whether one can actually derive such a notion from the Constitution. It does, however, speak very straightforwardly regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

        Neither does the Constitution in any way indicate that there is any…any…expectation that citizens should be made (or even socially pressured) to set aside their rights to speech and free exercise of religion as a condition of entering the marketplace, regardless of whether or not they are vendors or employees. So, that means someone doesn’t get their flowers. Not the end of the world. But forcing someone to completely shelve their values and deny their most deeply held religions convictions? That is completely antithetical to the most fundamental concepts and ideas this nation was built upon.

        I believe your point of view has been culturally hijacked.

        Reply
        • Sam
          Sam says:

          It should be clear to ones who have received Christ that he is the ruler of the Universe. No amount of reasoning will change the minds of these fallen creatures. We can only share our Christ. The human spirit in man is most powerful. The Spirit of God is Sovereign.

          Reply
        • JH
          JH says:

          “You are advocating anti-discrimination, but in only one direction.”
          That is wholly incorrect. I am, in fact, pointing out that the one-direction anti-discrimination comes from the Christian mindset. When was the last time you walked into a place of business and were turned away because of your faith? I guarantee it never happened here in America. You are free to have your conscience. You are not free to impose it on others. Especially when it comes to offering professional services. There are laws that trump your conscience. I’ve listed them in this forum a couple times but, for some reason, Christians seem to think these laws don’t apply to them when it comes to encountering homosexuals. This mindset needs correcting.

          Providing flowers is not participation in a relationship between consenting adults. It is not engaging in any action that would be sinful. If there is scripture somewhere that suggests otherwise, please cite it here. I’ve not seen the passage in the bible that says “thou shalt not have any business dealings with sinners” because, if that passage did exist, no Christian would be capable of conducting business.

          The laws that enforce anti-discrimination are directly derived from the 1st Amendment. They are written clearly as to leave no question about the intention of those laws. There is no caveat or addendum that suggests these laws only apply to people that think the laws are just. It’s also the very principal behind The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That sentiment has been around since the dawn of civilization. It’s also one that Jesus has been known to advocate.

          I do recommend you familiarize yourself with the laws, understand their intent and then find it within yourself to understand why they are there and how they work for you as well as those you would prefer to not tolerate. If everyone treated the gay couple as you would, then what kind of civilization do you think America would be? Try to imagine how you would live if everyone treated you the way you would treat homosexuals.

          Here, in America, most of us celebrate our diversity with pride. Others try to label, segregate and discriminate against people that look or live differently. One is positive and progressive. The other, not so much.

          Reply
          • JS
            JS says:

            JH,

            “When was the last time you walked into a place of business and were turned away because of your faith?” You are manipulating the facts. The customer wasn’t turned away because he was gay. The florist had been serving him for years, and I am sure his sexual preference wasn’t unknown to her. She didn’t refuse him flowers. She refused to be a participant in something that she had a moral objection to. For you to advocate against that is simply coercion. You can couch it any way you want, but it is authoritarian and discriminatory to the core.

            She didn’t impose her conscience on the customer. That is where your thinking is warped. She simply said she could not participate. How is that forcing her conscience on him? You are one of those that equate dissenting opinion with “force.” Typical. The one forcing their conscience is the customer…and people like you…who believe that people should be coerced into doing things that they don’t believe in doing. She forced nothing on anyone by simply saying “no.” Your side is the one trying to force her into something. And everyone else, for that matter.

            The mindset you think needs correcting is the mindset that will not go along with something just because it is told what to think and threatened with lawsuits if it won’t get on board. You cannot stand it that people will not get on track with your agenda, and you think the answer is using the legal system to force them to do so. You’re just a bully.

            Me? I couldn’t care less what gay people do. Why? Well, because I think freedom actually matters. But that doesn’t mean I think everyone in the world has to like it, celebrate it, or participate in it. That would NOT be freedom. That would be forced conformity – which is what you are all about.

            Your interpretation of another’s deeply held religious beliefs is utterly irrelevant. Yours are not the standards one’s religious beliefs are judged by. It is not for you to say what is or is not a sin for someone else. If you don’t like what they believe, and you don’t agree, tough. Welcome to free and open societies.

            I am quite familiar with the laws, and I am aware that many states have anti-discrimination laws. And I am also aware that some of these cases have arisen because of a direct violation of these anti-discrimination laws. A law on the books does not make it a just law. If you disagree with that, then I guess you think African Americans should have stayed happy at the back of the bus.

            But go ahead with your totalitarian mindset. It will eventually come back around and bite you. Your rights and freedoms will be next. You can’t go around snatching other people’s freedoms away from them and not expect a turn about at some point. You’re laying the groundwork for a society and a legal system that will be coming for your rights next. I won’t be there to fight for you.

          • SDY
            SDY says:

            If the customers had actually filed the complaint against Mrs. Stutzman, I might have a little sympathy toward your remarks, but as it appears this lawsuit is driven from the courts, which translated to belief control to me. As a private business owner I should liberty to take what ever job or service I chose. And, I understand the touchiness of this situation. But still agree with the flower shop owner.

          • JH
            JH says:

            “You are manipulating the facts. The customer wasn’t turned away because he was gay. The florist had been serving him for years, and I am sure his sexual preference wasn’t unknown to her. She didn’t refuse him flowers. She refused to be a participant in something that she had a moral objection to.”

            Stop right there. Let’s address this because it’s an incorrect conclusion teamed up with baseless speculation and topped off with a greatly over exaggerated statement.

            First, The customer was indeed denied the services of her floral arrangements on the discriminatory fact that it was for a gay couple. It doesn’t matter if it was for a wedding or merely a table centerpiece. The fact is, Arlene discriminated against providing her publicly available service because of the people involved in the ceremony where her floral arrangements were requested as a decorative element. Therefore, the customer was indeed turned away because he was gay. If it had been the same request for a man and woman there would have been no moral conundrum for Arleen and she would have gladly fulfilled the request.

            Secondly, you are making an assumption that Arleen knew of the customers sexual preference. You don’t know that.

            Thirdly, your use of the word “participant” is the real root of the problem with your opinion on the subject. Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion. Say the gay man’s boss was morally conflicted with having a gay employee. Perhaps he didn’t know until he heard that the employee in question was going to get married. Well, the boss doesn’t want to “participate” in the gay employees homosexual union so he fires him because the employee would surely use some of the wages earned at his job to fund the ceremony and decorate it with flowers. Or perhaps the guy that works at the gas station doesn’t want to “participate” in a gay wedding so he refuses to sell him the fuel that would get him to the place where the ceremony would be performed. Or the realtor that the gay couple asks to help find them a home doesn’t want to “participate” in their gay marriage by selling them a home where they would live their gay lives. You see where this is going, I hope… and can recognize your lack of judgment when suggesting someone is participating in their gay lifestyle. The only ones “participating” in their choice is the two men getting married. Your notion of “participation” provides a vast expanse of gray area between lawful and unlawful.

            “She didn’t impose her conscience on the customer. That is where your thinking is warped. She simply said she could not participate. How is that forcing her conscience on him?”

            Wrong again. Telling someone you will not hire or sell them something because you don’t approve of their lifestyle/color/religion/gender/origin/etc. is telling that person that they are not worthy of your services based on whatever bigoted reason you happen to have. That is imposing your opinion on someone.

            “The mindset you think needs correcting is the mindset that will not go along with something just because it is told what to think and threatened with lawsuits if it won’t get on board. You cannot stand it that people will not get on track with your agenda, and you think the answer is using the legal system to force them to do so. You’re just a bully.”

            My agenda? My only agenda is to suggest that people be treated fairly no matter what god you do or do not pray to… or any other reason you could think of to condemn or deny someone. There is nothing bullying about that in the least.

            “Me? I couldn’t care less what gay people do.”

            That is certainly not the impression you are putting fourth with your argument. It seems to bother you a great deal for gays to be treated as equals.

            “Your interpretation of another’s deeply held religious beliefs is utterly irrelevant. Yours are not the standards one’s religious beliefs are judged by.”

            Judge not, lest ye be judged. Christians sure do love to wag fingers at what they consider sinful behavior of non-Christians. But boy, when that finger gets wagged back, just watch those feathers get ruffled.

            “I am quite familiar with the laws, and I am aware that many states have anti-discrimination laws. And I am also aware that some of these cases have arisen because of a direct violation of these anti-discrimination laws. A law on the books does not make it a just law. If you disagree with that, then I guess you think African Americans should have stayed happy at the back of the bus.”

            I’m completely unsure of what you are suggesting with the “…African Americans should have stayed happy at the back of the bus.” reference. It certainly has nothing to do with the point I have been making. As for the rest of that statement, who judges what makes a law justified? Break them and pay… just like Arleen.

            “But go ahead with your totalitarian mindset. It will eventually come back around and bite you. Your rights and freedoms will be next.”

            Whatever is that supposed to mean? You have trouble with laws that enforce people being treated equally and fairly based on your personal morals? Everyone’s freedoms are in danger when Christian’s are free to impose religiously derived bigotry while everyone else just has to deal with Christian entitlement. No, thank you. That’s just not what America is about.

          • Allen Raines
            Allen Raines says:

            Romans 1:32 and 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 . . . the key verse is 10:28. As for the “Golden Rule”, this florist is acting out of love, should she not expect him to do the same?

      • Martha La Pinta
        Martha La Pinta says:

        You are right when you say: . . .there is no “experiment of the abnormal” here. Homosexuals are nothing new to humanity . . .” Neither is beastiality, incest, rape, . . . the list goes on. But you are definitely wrong considering these things normal.

        Reply
      • ML
        ML says:

        Thank you, JH. Keep fighting. It’s worth it. Not all of us who are Christians believe in treating those different than us with a lack of respect and in a discriminatory manner. We try to see everyone as God would see them, that is, someone wonderfully and lovingly made in His image. We are called to love our neighbors. Our neighbor is everyone we meet whether in a church or in a store. My conscience would never allow me to refuse to treat someone whether in a business setting or not, any differently than the next person. I hope never to operate a business in which I pick and choose who to deal with. I hope never to be in a profession such as medicine in which I choose who to treat.

        If Ms. Stutzman was a doctor, would she refuse to treat a gay couple’s child? If you think that is unfathomable, something similar has happened in which a lesbian couple’s newborn was refused a well care visit after the physician said she prayed about it and felt God was telling her not to. I worship the same God and I don’t believe God would ever tell me to make anyone feel less than the human being God made them to be.

        That is what these so-called Christians are doing. By telling them that they are not worthy to be served in their business, they are less than a human being. As a minority, I understand that feeling. I didn’t choose the color of my skin and I don’t believe gays choose to be gay.

        Keep fighting, keep defending, keep loving all.

        Reply
          • daniwitz13
            daniwitz13 says:

            JH, If you went to a Lawyer telling him your case (what you want from him) and he tells you that he won’t take your case, can you sue him? If you went to a house Painter to paint your house, can he refuse? What you don’t understand is, anything requested for the FUTURE, can be refused on the grounds that I might not be living at the time. Ask an Architect to draw your plans (he has not done it yet) house to be painted, portrait to be painted, singer to sing or perform, and FLOWERS to be arranged, ALL can be refuse, because it has not occurred yet, and unknown. Any MADE in her shop, she cannot refuse. But then even the AG is clueless.

        • fatalerror94
          fatalerror94 says:

          OMG! This is the second time I’ve come across this reluctant Doctor and dying patient analogy.

          You are assuming that a patient is the same as a customer.

          The gay couples child needs immediate intervention to live, so yes, refusal to treat her could be prosecuted as “depraved indifference”, because failure to act when one could have led to someone’s death.

          This is not the same as being a gay potential customer and having the proprietor refuse service on religious grounds.

          Why?

          Well, first because the proprietors refusal to serve wouldn’t actually kill anyone. This point right here proves that the analogy above to be a “false equivalence fallacy”.

          Two, as a private citizen, (and yes even owning a business you are still a private citizen) you have the right of refuse serving anyone (except, possibly, in an emergency situation), if you did not, then that would make you a de facto slave.

          Reply
      • Joel
        Joel says:

        It’s proven other species only use sodomy as an act of domination.

        Watching the LGBT try to lynch people for not agreeing with them like this, proves they are no different than some of these animals.

        It’s not normal. Sodomy is a vise like many other deviant behaviors. It’s like prostitution or sex addiction. Yes it doesn’t ‘seem’ to hurt people, even though it does shatter families. But they are still wrong. People can choose to resist temptations and live a more moral life. If we all lived by our passions, we would not have a society.

        Rome and Persia among others proved that a long time ago. God I wish people would learn.

        Reply
      • Steve
        Steve says:

        “Experiment of the abnormal”, is a valid expression. Even as you attempt to deflect, converting ‘abnormal’ to ‘unnatural’. In a mathematical context, abnormal is ‘that which is outside normal boundaries’. In the case of human homosexuality, only 2.4% of people claim to exhibit same sex attraction, much less than 95% of the rest for a ‘normal’.
        There are many reasons why animals would exhibit homosexual behaviors. This is irrelevant to the discussion of reasoning human beings.
        Anti-discrimination laws in America… Let’s see, what does the 1st Amendment say? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”, therefore, if an “anti-discrimination” law is used to violate a person’s religious principles, that law should be held unconstitutional.

        Reply
      • Tom Chidwick
        Tom Chidwick says:

        We need to stop pretending that “discrimination”, in any form, is evil. We all make discriminations (recognize a distinction; differentiate, per Google’s definition). The liberal crowd makes distinctions and differentiations, i.e. discriminates, all day long, just like the conservative. So yes, everyone is bigoted, We all prejudge. We all make decisions about what’s right and what’s wrong on a daily, even moment-by-moment basis. That is nature of truth – it divides. The question then becomes, whose definition of right and wrong are we going to follow? I believe the 1st Amendment gives us all the freedom to make these choices about right and wrong, yes – to discriminate, on an individual basis, up and to the point the State has a direct interest in defining right and wrong for us. I also believe it is unfortunate that states have opted in this case to infringe on a business owner’s rights to make decisions about right and wrong, and impose its morality on her. Her convictions are not going to be overturned because of this law. Yes this anti-discrimination law is indeed the law of the State of Washington. My point is it’s a BAD law, as it is counter to the purpose and beauty of the 1st amendment. Ms Stutzman’s freedoms to make here own decisions here should be honored, celebrated and protected by the State. Instead, the State is now attempting to take the place of God’s convictions in our hearts. It’s actually a very weak position the liberals find themselves in, and they need the power of the State to hold a metaphorical gun to people’s heads in order to comply. We should be going in the other direction; convince people they are wrong by way of the power of your argument, all the while freeing the person to make his/her choice.

        Reply
  5. Sam
    Sam says:

    It should be clear to ones who have received Christ that he is the ruler of the Universe. No amount of reasoning will change the minds of these fallen creatures. We can only share our Christ. The human spirit in man is most powerful. The Spirit of God is Sovereign.

    Reply
  6. Thomas Krause
    Thomas Krause says:

    My wife and I sent the following message to AG Ferguson:

    Mr. Ferguson,

    Why are you discriminating against conservative Christians acting upon their closely held beliefs? Of course we are referring to your relentless pursuit of Barronelle Stutzman and Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. You may think you’re a champion of the law, but you are actually violating the Washington State Constitution which states in Article I Section 11 “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion…” If you believe that Ms. Stutzman’s actions rise to the level of being “construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justif[ying] practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state, as is also stated in Article I Section 11, you are sadly mistaken. There is no “licentiousness” in Ms. Stutzman’s actions, nor do her practices jeopardize the “peace and safety of the state”.

    We believe you are actively pursuing a political agenda rather than following the law of the State of Washington as proscribed in our Constitution – which is your sworn duty. Based on your actions to date, we can only surmise that your ultimate goal is to silence any and all dissent through the power of the State to seize personal property and incarcerate individuals, who act upon closely held religious beliefs as protected in the Washington State Constitution. If you succeed, a terrible precedent will be set, such that no person of any religious conviction in Washington State can ever again feel safe in their beliefs.

    Reply
    • Owl
      Owl says:

      Fight the good fight for the true faith. Hold tightly to the eternal life to which God has called you, which you have confessed so well before many witnesses.

      Reply
    • Peter Harvey
      Peter Harvey says:

      Sir:

      Your letter is an inspiration to me! Some of us out here are so beaten back by our government officials and their anti-Christian allies that we have given up. Your letter makes me feel their still may be hope for our state. Thank you for standing up and being counted!

      Reply
    • Tom Chidwick
      Tom Chidwick says:

      EXCELLENT message, Mr Krause. Thank you for doing so.
      My phone message to the Attorney General’s office was very similar. I did not get a response, even though I requested one. I am resident of Washington State, and I too wonder as to the safety of my strongly-held beliefs, at the hands of an over-reaching State government. This is a terribly bad precedent being set. Thank you for standing against this.

      Reply
  7. Robert T
    Robert T says:

    As a Senior Citizen I am curious how AG Ferguson will answer my email to him. Will he bully me as he seems to think he can to others who choose to speak out to protect their beliefs? When do we the people take a stand and start a recall motion to remove an AG so biased. One who discriminates in favor of a small minority with an agenda to punish anybody who refuses to cave in to their childish demands.

    Reply
  8. J H
    J H says:

    Sounds like bullying to me. From the AG and the gay community. You should not be made to do something that you believe is wrong, especially if there are other options for the other party.

    Reply
    • JH
      JH says:

      How is arranging flowers for one event where people declare their dedication and love to one another different for arranging flowers for a different event where people declare their dedication and love to one another? Just because it’s not what you would do shouldn’t make the occasion a moral conundrum. Your mindset would drive our social progress back 100 years.

      It’s not the options available that are in question. It’s the mindset that discrimination comes from that is the problem. There are anti-discrimination laws for a reason. Have you seen what is happening to homosexuals in Russia? I recommend doing a little research to see how far discrimination can go and why our laws are just and socially responsible.

      Reply
      • Nancy
        Nancy says:

        Exactly why should Barronelle be forced to participate in a same sex wedding? Since when in America is it required that folks must do the bidding of others? The last I knew this was called slavery.

        Reply
        • Sarah Kim
          Sarah Kim says:

          Completely agree Nancy. I consider this as a reversed discrimination. If these two men couples were only to buy flowers from her shop, if this old lady politely and kindly declined and offered free flowers for them to take home, most people will rather appreciate it and respect her. Where is respect for this lady from two men couple? If they were upset for their own rightful reasons, I respect that too. However, they went too far… suing this old lady over not selling them flowers… I’ve never seen anything like that in the US history except for in the past few years after the anti-discrimination law passed. Anti-discrimination law has been working against Christians and it’s actually Reversed Discrimination for believers.

          Reply
      • PCS
        PCS says:

        Have you seen what’s happening to Christians in the Middle East? This woman is not doing any violence to any person. She is simply trying to live according to the religious conviction she follows. What good is it to have a conviction if we can’t live by it?

        Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw last week. THINK: It’s Not Illegal Yet. But apparently the thought police are braying at the door in Washington State.

        Reply
      • D-J-Eden
        D-J-Eden says:

        Let’s get real. Do we really think this is a slamdunk on either side!? Aside from our spiritual & cultural divides, we all want the same 2 things: Fairness & Freedom! But where each of us would draw that line varies. Thus the courts must step in. Legal Fact 1: If you own a public biz you must serve everyone w/o discrimination. Legal Fact 2: A biz owner should have the right to restrict service as it seems appropriate. So…. What would we say if we saw these biz policies:
        No shirt. No shoes. = No service.
        We don’t serve Jews… Colored People… Muslims.
        We reserve the right not to cater KKK gatherings.
        This club is for male patrons only.
        The Boy’s Little League is not open to girls.
        Sorry, we will not be constructing a giant penis for your LGBT float.
        We will not be supplying the photography for your Gun Rights Expo.
        We’ll be happy to make a cake for your Gay Wedding;
        but you will need to decorate it yourself.
        We are unable to do the “Best F—–g Restaurant in Town!” billboard.
        Sorry, we won’t be printing your “God Hates Fags” posters… or t-shirts… or refrigerator magnets.
        We’ll not be supplying the sound system for the Satanic Ritual & Nudist Rock Festival.
        Our agency reserves the right not to create advertising for…The Playboy channel…The Black Panthers…Fox News…Rush Limbaugh…Catholics…Planned Parenthood…Cigarettes…On-line Porn…
        We’d rather not participate so deeply in certain endeavors… OK?

        Reply
  9. karen
    karen says:

    We’re standing with you….

    Remember the power of the vote….

    All these issues are coming to light which is forcing people to stand for their beliefs and/or convictions..A spiritual plumb line is being dropped and separation of sheep from the goats is taking place.

    Reply
  10. Bill
    Bill says:

    One may ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. I can urge them to disobey glbt ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
    Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
    Let me give you another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on the citizenry that, as a result of being forced to accept abominable behavior, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of various state’s glbt laws demonstrated wisdom in drafting such laws without regard to science, biology, and natural design and intent?
    One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
    Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
    I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.
    Marriage between a man and a woman (male to female) is one such principle “dear to the Christian faith”. Supporter and advocates of same-sex orientation have successfully clouded the issue by making it political. Terms like “[marriage] equality”; “discrimination”; “fairness”; “right to [marry whomever you love]” has gained sufficient mileage for sympathetic ears, only because these terms were paramount to the civil rights struggle. The erroneous framing of the issue HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE A REPULICAN OR A DEMOCRAT. The Christian way of life has never been nor should it ever be an arm of the political system in charge for the moment. Should todays Christians just roll over and take these new “unjust laws” or fight to the death to preserve mankind as God intended? No! You should WATCH God’s awesome power as only He can deal with this situation. The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has amassed much data on the effects of same-sex relationships which goes right to the heart of attempting to defy God’s plan for mankind – the consequences are built in. It is not pretty, and yet, main media hosts fail miserably to warn citizens of the danger of such abominable relationships. Remember those of you who can; how long it took for society to condemn the detrimental effects of voluntarily inhaling burnt tobacco into your lungs? Many citizens suffered through being bombarded with commercials glamorizing this act as suave, cool, or outright acceptable healthy behavior.
    Many special people left this earth too soon because of the ill effects of their uninformed choices made from targeted advertisements, as well as being victimized by the enforcement of unjust laws. Before exercising your right to choose – get as much information as you can on the subject and get help from objective sources to help you weigh the information for toxicity.
    Rather than allow a condition (same-sex activity) to fester and destroy, the humanitarian thing to do would be to grant as many professionals who are willing and able to treat such conditions so that society can benefit and be a model of morality to the world in respect for our Creator and His design and intent of the human body.
    In GOD WE TRUST?
    America’s collective ways and actions speak louder than words or inscriptions on our buildings and currency. The whole world is watching.

    Borrowed excerpts from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

    Reply
  11. karen
    karen says:

    Arelen’s flowers was right to stand up for their beliefs. In this case the Attorney General was wrong. Maybe he should check with the US constitution. This is a country we are not forced to believe one war or another. Each of us can choose what we want to believe. Christians are asked to be tolerant. It is the Christian who is being discriminated against. Some believe that a store should not sell certain products because it is against their beliefs. Therefore they are trying to force everyone to believe that way. The Bible is very clear about living a homosexual lifestyle. If you choose to live that life style that is your business. I will love you. It is the job of every Christian to share the good news of Jesus Christ so that all will be saved. This is God’s will. Many lives have been changed because of Jesus. If you choose to reject Jesus that is your business, but I will love you.If you choose to hate others I will love you.

    No one should be FORCED to leave their beliefs at the door. No other group of people is being ask to leave their beliefs behind. This discrimination against the Christian. Christians wake up before it is too late and all your rights have been taken away. Follow what others have done before you, love God, love others and share the good news with everyone. My prayer is that one day all will be saved.

    Reply
    • JH
      JH says:

      It’s ironic that you hold the Constitution up as defense. That document details the rights for everyone… not just Christians.

      To support the rights contained within the Constitution, the state law that was derived from the principals laid out in the Constitution and to clarify how those laws are to be implemented, feel free to refer to this:
      SCOTUS, 1878, Reynolds v US

      Breaking or ignoring the law is a crime and subject to criminal indictment and all punishments as prescribed by law. Religious belief, duty, or conviction is no defense to criminal indictment. Claims of religious belief to ignore or violate the law of any local, state, or federal government in order to avoid criminal indictment violates the US Constitution under the 6th Amendment concerning the Confrontation Clause and the Fair Jury Clause.

      End of story. Arlene and her supporters are wrong.

      Reply
        • JH
          JH says:

          They would come for me for not being a bigot? On what grounds, exactly? No, TEK. You got it wrong. Christians aren’t being prosecuted because they are Christians. Individuals are being prosecuted for acts of discrimination. It doesn’t matter what they use as justification to treat some differently than others. If it were an atheist or a Muslim it would have been the same lawsuit.

          Reply
      • Robert
        Robert says:

        So by your logic kick the Muslims out of the country they don’t do same sex weddings.? What happened to religious freedom in this nation…now we got people forcing other people to do things they don’t believe in….and you people are ok with that ?

        Reply
        • JH
          JH says:

          Wait… what, Robert? Who said anything about kicking anyone out of the country?

          Nobody is forcing the florist to have a same-sex romantic encounter. Nobody forced her to open a business that serves the public. Nobody forced her to not take the settlement offer. She chose by an act of free-will to either be unfamiliar or ignore a law that outlines how commercial business interactions are not to discriminate based on many factors including sexual preference. She accepted the responsibilities of compliance to anti-discrimination laws by opening her business. She had to acknowledge that she understood those laws and sign a document to even start the venture. That’s how it works.

          Even the Bible says the laws are just… I disagree with the premise it uses to suggest as such, but still, if you are going to support bigotry from one passage from the bible, you should follow the ones that suggest your ‘moral’ leverage is bogus. Right?

          Romans 13:1-5
          Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

          Reply
          • JM
            JM says:

            Romans 1:24-27

            “24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

            26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

            You cannot reconcile “authorities” in Romans 13 with Romans 1. As Romans 1 says, “authority” would not have the force to require the blessing of something impure by a believer.

            This woman is being asked to put her imprimatur on something she does not believe to be true. That is doing violence to her conscience.

      • daniwitz13
        daniwitz13 says:

        You and the AG do not understand the accommodation Law. One has to accommodate what one has existing in their shop and showcase. NOT something not made yet, and needs to be made in the Future. Will you be available next week or month from now? If you died, do I still hold you to it? If this site refuse to print your comment (future) can you sue? It’s a business, offering to accommodate commenters, can they refuse to accommodate you? Yes. Religion is irrelevant to this case at hand.

        Reply
        • JH
          JH says:

          Religion has always been irrelevant to this case. The only thing relevant is the fact that Arlene discriminated against a patron based on that patron’s sexual preference. It just so happens that Arlene discriminated because of what other Christians told her about people that have a particular sexual preference. Religion and indoctrination are never valid excuses for discrimination. That is why the case was put fourth.

          Reply
  12. DONNY
    DONNY says:

    This is the good fight here.
    In the last days we will be tested by our father. Who is theirs?
    The elect will be known by their faith.

    Reply
  13. Connie
    Connie says:

    The bible is very clear about homosexuality, there is no gray area. You choose to be that way. Comparing one’s choice of sexual preference to the color of your skin shows your ignorance on all levels. I applaud the owner of the business for standing for what’s right, for truth, God’s truth.

    Reply
    • Ben
      Ben says:

      The bible also states that children should be killed for lying to their parents. I choose not to follow the teachings of the bible. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice, and I’m fairly sure, last time I checked, Christians are meant to love others and be accepting. Who are you to judge someone? Is it not God that bears the right of judgement?

      Reply
      • Raleigh
        Raleigh says:

        So it is your choice not to follow the teachings of the Bible. Good for you, Ben. You have made a choice as a free thinking human being. Just as Barronelle has. Is the STATE now the final authority on what we are going to THINK as free human beings Ben? What are you going to do when they come after your personal wealth and property Ben? Like you have never judged anyone in your entire life?

        Reply
        • joe
          joe says:

          One persons rights end where another person’s rights begin, Raleigh. I’m quite certain, if a public service oriented business declined to provide service to you because they didn’t like the cross hanging from your rear view mirror or the fish sticker on your bumper, you would be singing a completely different song.

          Judging someone is a natural human thing to do. It’s the action (or inaction, in this case) of treating someone differently because of that judgement that is clearly defined as unlawful discrimination.

          Reply
      • Rachelle
        Rachelle says:

        Ben, you reveal your ignorance of the OT vs NT and the new covenant of grace which came through Jesus. Christianity does not stone people to death as prescribed for sin under the Mosaic laws.

        Reply
      • Tionico
        Tionico says:

        Go and read what the apostle Paul said to the chrich at Corinth… about the man who was engaging in prohibited sexual activity (adultery, same sin as sodomy). He chastised them for TOLERATING their adultery, and commanded them to put that man out of their group until he repented and ended his practices. This directly contrasts to your assumptions.. so no, you thought wrong. We are NOT to “be accepting” when someone ie engaging in definite and refuses to stop.

        As to your nonsense about being killed for lying to their parents.. how about a reference? I don’t recall this. At most, its part of the complex social laws that were done away with (pork, shellfish, milk and meat, limits on walking on the Sabbath, etc) upon the completion of the work of Redemption Christ accomplished by His death on the cross. What remains for all men, however, are those activities clealry listed in the decalogue, or, the Ten COmmanadments given Moses way back when. You know, that list Judge Roy Moore lost his job over? Yeah, and he got it back, the People of his state wanted him back. Your understanding of what it means to be a christian is rather a fantasy, likely based on popular ideas, and certainly NOT based on God’s Word.

        Reply
      • Richard Vienneau
        Richard Vienneau says:

        Would you please enlighten me and tell me where and in what bible it states “children should be killed for lying to their parents”

        Reply
      • Deb
        Deb says:

        not providing a service that goes against your beliefs is NOT judging anyone. We have a right to religious freedom. Forcing a person to go against their religious beliefs is unjust and discriminatory.

        Homosexuality IS a choice. You either act on it or you don’t.

        Reply
    • Joe
      Joe says:

      And how, exactly, are you so informed on such life choices? It’s clear you have no idea what you are talking about and merely speculating to justify treating someone as something less than you. You also use the bible to support your bigotry. It seems to me that, like the rest of the bible, ‘God’s truth’ is subject to perception. John 8:7 and Matthew 7:1 keep getting sidelined when it comes to treating another without the level of respect they deserve.

      Reply
    • Joe P
      Joe P says:

      The Bible also says to stone gays and lesbians, aka abominations. So, Yahweh demands you get your hands dirty by participating in a communal stoning. You’re violating God’s commandment until you do. Of course,you’ll be breaking man’s laws too.

      Reply
      • Rachelle
        Rachelle says:

        You reveal your ignorance here of the Old Testament versus New Testament. Only under mosaic laws was stoning permitted. And it was only for specific soon behavior. In the New Testament with the dispensation of Grace through Jesus Christ, That form of punishment ended. However God’s word has not changed in terms of what he says is sin. Your argument is not with Christians who takes seriously sin behavior. Your argument is with God. While Christians are not perfect and many have failed in this area, the goal of a Christian according to the writings of the new testament is to allow God to make us more and more like him. Christians lovepeople because God loves people. However God does not love what he calls sin. As Christians we are called to love people but not to engage or somehow engage in their sin.

        Reply
    • Joe
      Joe says:

      The bible is not where the United States derives it’s laws on discrimination. Nor does it trump The Constitution.

      Washington State Law is quite clear on the subject. And Biblical sanctioned bigotry is not cited as any kind of excuse as to how the law doesn’t apply to Christians or anyone else. If you have a business that offers a service to the public you serve all the public. Even the people you think are somehow morally inferior to you. It’s not your place to judge… lest ye are ready to be judged, of course.

      RCW 49.60.030
      Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

      (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

      (f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices

      Reply
      • Raleigh
        Raleigh says:

        Hey, Joe, are you going to go to every business in the land and take down those signs that say WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE? If I am a homo sexual and want to go out and get drunk all night is the bartender working there a BIGOT for kicking me out?? Y’all can’t have it both ways. If they want to be homo sexual and get married, that’s their business, but don’t tell the rest of us what to do, say or think. Christians are entitled to their beliefs and should be protected to run their businesses any way they please without help from the thought police and the STATE.

        Reply
        • Joe
          Joe says:

          No need, Raleigh. It all depends on the service provided and the clientele the business decides to exercise their beliefs vs. the Constitution of the United States. They can be bigots all they like. The sign they put on the wall doesn’t make it lawful to be a bigot, nor does that sign trump state/national anti-discrimination laws. It seems way too many people, including yourself apparently, are very unclear on where their rights end. I recommend looking up your states anti-discrimination laws and even looking up the definition of words used within those laws to help clear up your confusion.

          Christians are certainly entitled to their beliefs. But they are in the wrong if they chose to impose their beliefs by discriminating others for any reason.

          Reply
          • Wendy
            Wendy says:

            Joe, you are advocating slavery. You are arguing that people can be forced against their will to work for others. Your position is morally untenable and has no place in an enlightened society.

          • Joe
            Joe says:

            Wendy, you honestly have no idea what slavery is. That word has nothing remotely relevant to the case brought against a bigoted shop owner. She is free to be a bigot. She is free to own a business and charge fees for the services she provides to the public. She is free to practice her religion. She is not free to impose her religion on others. Nor is she free to discriminate with her business and cite her religion as a motive to treat some members of the public differently than others.

          • Tom Chidwick
            Tom Chidwick says:

            Joe, do you seriously think there is an imposition of a religion in this case? Wow.
            No, actually Ms. Stutzman is one individual, making an individual choice, based on her own convictions. She is choosing to refrain from involvement in something she disagrees with. Nothing in her actions or words suggests she is attempting to impose anything on anyone. How in the world of all that is sane and normal is this even remotely an imposition of religion, or injurious to anyone? Seriously! What reality do you people live in that you would think that way? I just don’t get it.
            If you want to convince people that Homosexuality is morally acceptable, and that marriage can be redefined to something other than that which its original Author said it is, then using the State as a strong-armed bully doesn’t strike me as very effective. People are not buying the lies, showing just how weak the State’s position really is.
            Here’s an idea. Let’s celebrate freedom for a change. Yes, even the freedom to be a ‘bigot’ and make bad decisions, if that’s even what is truly happening here. Otherwise we are on a very slippery slope to some serious Government intrusion in all aspects of life. It is too bad that you can not, or choose not, to see that.

      • Rachelle
        Rachelle says:

        I would like to see the Washington state Atty. Gen. deal with a Muslim owned business refusing to do business with homosexuals. Wonder how that would be handled?

        Reply
      • Tionico
        Tionico says:

        If you have a business that offers a service to the public you serve all the public. Even the people you think are somehow morally inferior to you. It’s not your place to judge…

        oh yes it is, as long as I judge according to God’s Word. And HE has judged ALL sexual activity outside of marriage as in the same category.. abomination, and prohibited.

        Now, as to your poppycock regarding “discirimination”, just because the “law” in Washington State seems to force this woman to support and participate in what her God calls an abomination does not mean it is right and judt to prohibit it. You forget two things.. first, the section of the Constitutioin of the State of Wasahington that preserves MY, and YOUR right to live according to our own conscneices and not be coerced, and you further forget the First Article of Ammendment to ur US Constitution… make no law …. preventing the free exercise of religion”. Mrs, Stutzman is being denied, under threat of being stripped of all her property and liberty to operate her business to feed herself and serve the community, , and that at the pint of a gun, because she chose not to give support and participate in something her God declares to be wrong. If she were asked to decorate a hall for a ceremony celebrating and honouring a woman who had just murdered her unborn infant for no other reason than that she did not waht the child, what do you think she’d do? Or, more accuratly, NOT do? I know.. without even aksing her. WHY? God condemns murder, and killing an innocent with no triel is murder… that child’s physical location inside her Mother’s womb does not change a thing.

        And finaly, having read the relevant section of law, as you quoted above, her actions do not compirse a “boycott or blacklist”, and Mrs. Stutzman retains the identical right to HER OWN freedom from discrimination on the basis of HER sexual orientation, AND her own religious beliefs as her putative clients do. Further, she did not disciminate against them on the basis of their sexual perversion, she merely declined to support them in their preferred activity. So, when you would hang HER for “discrimination”, her clinents had no problem with her decision, and she had served them for well over a decade, KNOWING they were sodomists. It is our state’s Attorney General who initiated the discrimination against HER, denying HER her right under this same law to be free from financial burden for exercising HER right to freedom from discrimination. Put the whoe on BOTH feet, there…. it fits.

        Reply
    • BillG
      BillG says:

      If you think it’s a choice you’re an idiot. It is not a “preference”; it’s the way we were born. And, fwiw I wouldn’t change it for anything.

      Reply
  14. Melissa
    Melissa says:

    This is just a giant gopher hole where no one wins, because the subject is based on people’s beliefs. And laws change with the majority who rule. WOW a winning argument for freedom on all levels. The flower shop owner has every right to refuse work as the gay couple has to conjoin.

    But, we don’t leave each other their rights and will strip an ELDERLY woman of her life long business and livelihood all in the name of “freedom” The Attorney General should be so impressed with himself – what a gopher.

    I think the COWARD in his big boy pants is the real antagonist here. What supreme power you have to keep this woman from creating memories for others. I think it’s time to strip the power from these positions of authority until they can be impartial and just. The rest of you maggots who put your views on others one way or the other through force, co·er·cion, or any other means to bend to your will, the extreme left is no better than the extreme right.

    This “settlement” agreement is so sour and tainted with bigotry – You make me sick.

    Reply
    • Joe
      Joe says:

      The settlement was generous and compassionate, considering the circumstances.

      Washington State Law is quite clear on the subject. And Biblical sanctioned bigotry is not cited as any kind of excuse as to how the law doesn’t apply to Christians or anyone else. If you have a business that offers a service to the public you serve all the public. Even the people you think are somehow morally inferior to you. It’s not your place to judge… lest ye are ready to be judged, of course.

      RCW 49.60.030
      Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

      (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

      (f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices

      Reply
      • Wendy
        Wendy says:

        Unjust laws should be disobeyed. Laws that compel people to labor for others for whatever reason are slavery laws and should be stricken. This is the 21st century.

        Reply
        • Joe
          Joe says:

          And who gets to decide which laws are unjust? What if someone’s religion said it was just to do physical harm to people of other religions. Would followers of that religion be free to just dismiss any laws that clearly say otherwise? Be careful what you wish for. The freedoms you suggest are “unjust” are protecting you as well. This is the 21st century, after all.

          Reply
      • Tionico
        Tionico says:

        stop using that word “bigotry”, you have no clue what it means. its just a hot button word you use to slam anyone else that disagrees with you, and slience them. It does not apply. The AtG is the real bigot, after the true meaning of the word.

        Here is another word and its definition you might consider:

        FASCISM: governnment control of private means of production. The government of the State of Washington, via AtG Ferguson, is demanding control over Arlene’se Flowers, a private means of production, by pressing this discriminatory and unjust lawsuit. Deal with that one.

        you quote: The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

        apply that same law to Mrs. Stutzman. SHE has the same right to frredom from discrimination, AND the right to live her faith. Both are denied her in this insane lawsuit.

        Further, read the COnscience clause in the Washington State Constitution, and the first two clauses of the First Article of Ammendment ot the Constitutioin of the United States. The way Ferguson is interpreting this law, you cite above, violates BOTH these Constititutions. And HE has sworn a solemn oath to protect and uphold BOTH, That oath he violates by persuing this unfounded case.

        Reply
        • JH
          JH says:

          Romans 13:1-5
          Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

          Apparently even the bible supports the anti-discrimination laws in place. It was Arlene’s responsibility to be aware of the law and act accordingly. She chose not to. She is now incurring judgment. It must be His plan.

          Reply
          • tl
            tl says:

            That’s funny … that you think the bible supports anti-discrimination laws “in place” and to submit to the authorities. Under that false moral premise the civil rights movement should never have happened or women should never have fought for the right to vote because all those protesters should have just submitted. Yeah, the Jews did that too in Germany because that was the law – and it worked out so well.

            God is very clear there is a distinction between the person and the behavior.

            1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
            1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

            Pretty discriminatory huh?

          • Michael Scott
            Michael Scott says:

            JH, you’re a smart person and half right, but not completely. Your knowledge of law misses many things law school teaches. You’re knowledge of scripture is also commendable but your perception of it isn’t what God implied. Laws are not in black and white but shades of grey, that’s why we argue cases on the merit and abilities councillors have in applying their theory. The fact that Stutzman treated her gay customers the same shows she did not discriminate. The fact that she denied to cater a wedding that she would have done for heterosexuals does show that her actions clearly wronged Ingersoll. It was based on her beliefs which is also defended by the same amendment. The law pertains to ethical business practices, her business was incorporated at the time making Stutzman uninvolved. Civil law is treated different from criminal law and are not compared by the punishments. Stutzman was charged with aiding and abetting allowing for the seizure of personal assets. This was wrong because she acted independently on a civil issue not criminal like that of RICO in illegal gambling. Stutzman’s company could discontinue the practice of weddings disclosing this publicly but that would be against our constitution allowing people their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in our Declaration of Independence. Our country founded on these principals that contain standards of good morals were not intended to be sacrificed by mistakes in the law.

  15. Anne
    Anne says:

    I look forward to the day when the law of the land is that business owners cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability status, etc., in carrying out their business, but must serve law-abiding customers. LGBT status is no different from race or disability–it is not a moral choice. I admire the couple who brought suit against Arlene’s Florist. She brought this on herself by denying floral arrangements for their wedding. And, she could have done the right thing by paying the fine and agreeing with the State that if she wants to operate a business she must follow state law. I admire the plaintiffs of this suit. Instead of ignoring the greater good and quietly going on with their own private lives, they are a “Rosa Parks” of a human civil rights movement of our day. Just as many conservative Christians supported slavery, and then supported segregation, many today bring shame upon Jesus’ name by supporting the marginalization of sexual minorities. They are brave men. Please read Matthew Vines’ book “God and the Gay Christian.” I will be praying fervently for you all to broaden your understanding of the inclusiveness of the Kingdom of God, where there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek, but all are one through Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Reply
    • cindy
      cindy says:

      I’m sorry, Anne, but I have to fervently disagree. THE owner of any business has the right to serve or not serve a customer. BTW, is Arlene ‘ s Flowers the only florist shop in town? The couple is just trying to bully the business owner into accepting their choice to marry the same sex partner. They could have gone to another florist, but instead they are being bullies. That doesn’t seem at all like Rosa Parks to me. No one should be forced to go against their conscience.

      Reply
      • Joe
        Joe says:

        It is very much like Rosa Parks. Expressing condemnation by refusal of a publicly offered service is judging others based on personal perception.

        Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, “in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated”.

        There are laws against this for very good reason. Show me one good reason why anti discrimination laws in a nation that defines itself by holding freedom most dear are inappropriate and perhaps bigotry can be reinstated. I do recommend that anyone that stands up for bigotry do so with caution. That sword swings both ways.

        Reply
        • Chudster
          Chudster says:

          No, perverse sexual desires are not the same as race, no matter how much you want to try to deceive yourself and others that they are.

          Reply
          • Joe
            Joe says:

            You don’t have any say what is defined as a perverse sexual desire, Chudster. This is America… not Bible camp.

          • Phil
            Phil says:

            Joe, Somebody must or don’t you think there is anything that is perverse sexually? Pedophilia, Bestiality. The state is so bigoted towards individuals who were born with these desires.

            Joe, all of us have rights to make judgments about things just like you are doing with regard to whether we have this right!

            Don’t you think it is rather interesting that religious freedom, expressed in our consititution is now subordinated to sexual freedom. I suppose our founder were secretly fighting for sexual freedom. How is it that the state is now forcing us to participate in celebrating the sort of activity that our founders criminalized?

            No Christian should have anything to do with these pagan ceremonies.

      • Tionico
        Tionico says:

        The owner of Arlene’s Flowers located a nother florist who was willing to fulfill the request of these two males, and they made use of their services and were quite content with the arrangement. Nor was it these two males who brought the suit. It was our newly elected, traitorous, perverse, Attorney General of the State of Washington who brought the suit……

        you are correct, no one should be forced to violate their own conscience…. and the Constitutioin fo the State of Washignton clearly guarantees all the freedom to NOT be forced to violate their conscience. Go tell THAT to our nasty AtG.

        Reply
    • Mike A
      Mike A says:

      So you believe in discriminating against religious people (which you just argued against) in order to not discriminate against gay couples? What we have here is a clash of competing freedoms. One of these is historic, and the other has just been granted by a handful of judges. A person’s values and long-standing business do not suddenly shift because a judge declares something now to be legal which was not before, and which during much of our history was considered to be a crime. It is also behavior that has been forbidden throughout Judeo-Christian history. Yes, some new false teachers like Matthew Vines have come along to put a polite veneer on social and spiritual corruption. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the biblical witness is very consistent in its view of sexuality from start to finish, and there is nothing there that remotely supports homoerotic behavior. But you seem to be willing to coerce traditional Christians with liberal sharia law to achieve your own social ends, and don’t mind that it destroys life and families in the process.

      Reply
    • Albert
      Albert says:

      Jesus would surely be compassionate towards these people, but the million dollar question is to ask whether Jesus would approve these people of their lifestyle?

      There was a reason why the Lord told the prostitute to “go and sin no more”.

      Reply
    • Tionico
      Tionico says:

      swexual orientation IS a moral issue.. raed the SUpreme COurt case Lawrensce vs Texas. God nowhere condemns race, disability, national origin, but He DOES clearly and persistently condemn ALL sexual activity outside of marriage, AND He clearely defines, in mulitple places, that marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman. Two males is NOT marriage. If you think it is, you call God a liar. Deal with it.

      Realis,e tooo, it was NOT the two males whose request for her to participate in their ceremony celebrating their sodomy that filed the suit. It was our State’s Attorney General who, upon hearning of the incident, decided HE had to press the matter.

      Now, you want businesses to be forced to serve anyone…. fine. This woman HAD served these two males for a decade. Didn’tmyou read the news? She only deco=lined to assist in celebreating and supporting an activity HER God declares to be an abomination. I’m quite certain she’d ALSO decline to participate in the same way in an event celebrating a male and a female who have both separated from their lawful spouses, and are now going to be living together, sexually involved, with no divorce or remarriage or other legal paperwork. That is adultery, also prohibited by Mrs. Stutzman’s God… He pputs such a relationship in precisely the same category as He puts sodomy. Deal with it. Pray all you want, but your own support of this will ikely close the heavens to your “prayers”.

      Your claim of the inclusiveness of the kingdom of heaven is valid.. to a point. Before one can ENTER that Kingdom, one must REPENT of their evil ways, and the King of that Kingdom declares sodomy to be an abomination….. and clearly declares that wnyone who continues in usch things cannot enter that Kingdom. Your understanding of His kingsom is rather twisted. Read Paul on the subject.. HIS writings trup Vines…. God calls the “gay christian” (who is either one or the other, but not both, they are mutually exclusive) to repent of their perversion, just as He also calls the drunk the aadulteror, the murder, the thief…. and Paul declares, after includiung sodomy in the list of “don’t do these things” when writing to the church, that “such were some of us”. Note that past perfect tense of the verb “to be”. I get my understanding of the “inclusiveness” of the Kingdom of God from Jesus, whos spells it out clearly in a number of places. You forget that it is only IN CHRIST that there is no Jew or greek, no male nor female, and that all are one… you further forget what it takes to be “one through Jesus Christ ourLord”…”who condemns those who cry Lord Lord, but do not do the things that I say. WHAT were his words to that adulterous woman He met at the well over in Samaria? “Go and sin no more”. That is the only message to people like the two males who continue in their sodomy… “go and sin no more”.

      Reply
  16. Paula
    Paula says:

    I was raised to believe that by participating in something you are condoning it. If the florist doesn’t condone same-sex marriage because it is against her religion, then she should have the right to not provide flowers for the “wedding.” I worked for a florist where my cousin was purchasing flowers for her wedding (not a same-sex ceremony, but a heterosexual union) and I refused to work on the flowers because I did not condone her marriage to the slug she was marrying. My boss was not especially happy with my stand, but understood and did not make me work on the flowers. Later she told me that had I revealed the reason I did not approve of the marriage, she probably would have turned down the job and asked my cousin to go to another florist.

    Reply
  17. Beverly DeCoster
    Beverly DeCoster says:

    I’ll toss in another issue here. What happened to Free Enterprise? Isn’t that practiced in Washington? As a principle, it would hold that the shop owner can refuse to do business with a prospective customer, and that the prospective customer can refuse the shop owner’s prices / proposal and walk out. Any business that is forced to do business with any person or entity smacks of both communism and socialism. The AG should be disbarred for initiating this case, much less pursuing it. His failing to withdraw after the shop owner’s reply to his “settlement” offer (should actually say “forced cave-in” offer) demonstrates that he doesn’t belong in any position of authority at all, and especially not one involving any legal process. Extremely shameful. To Mark Christians previous comments, hats off to you sir, for having a measured grip on reality and liberty.

    Reply
    • Tionico
      Tionico says:

      FASCISM defined: government control of the private means of production.

      Here, the government of the State of Washington is commanding how this business functions, and that under threat of taking the business and personal assets of this woman, at the point of a gun.

      fascism, indeed. And you are correct.. this piece of work posing as our Attorney General should be disbarred. And the judge who just ruled on this case needs to be recalled by the people who elected him.

      Reply
    • Goodguy
      Goodguy says:

      You are right Joe, the Christians are so intolerant, I see it all the time, I mean so many laws being passed to make everyone participate and support religious events. Something has to be done to stop this madness.
      We as Christians should be ashamed of ourselves for having such a belief.

      Are you so blind as not to see what a law like this will do in the future, do you not see that if a gay couple and the state can sue and destroy one old Christian lady for standing up for what she believes in, that the same state can do the same to the gay community when the roles are reversed?

      It’s not really about the religious aspects of the case, but the overall and future implications of what this will do in the future.

      Reply
  18. Liz Brody
    Liz Brody says:

    Marriage has always been and always will be a religious ceremony. In history marriage has always been practiced and fulfilled within the confines of a religious or spiritual obligation. The form that is used today is came about by the passing of Lord Hardwickes’s Marriage Act of 1753 in London England. These customs where passed onto the newly formed America. What is needed here is a good study of history. Marriages customs have been celebrated in many cultures for thousands of years and not just Christian cultures. Christianity, Buddism, Doaism, Sihk’s, Dalai Lama, Bahai’, all have the same consensus of it being sexual sin or misconduct.

    http://www.coptic.net/articles/OnHomosexuality.txt
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality

    Reply
    • Liz Brody
      Liz Brody says:

      Meant to say: Christianity, Buddism, Doaism, Sihk’s, Dalai Lama, Bahai’, all have the same consensus of homosexuality being a sexual sin or misconduct.

      Reply
  19. Mary
    Mary says:

    it is a sad day that those who want to be respected and honored and treated equally are now violating those same rights the right to choose the right to be how she is .if you have to dishoner and take away another’s right what did you win . How dishoner able of those 2 men to violate the rights of that women when they want their rights upheld . How dis honorable of that judge to up hold that which is un honorable

    Reply
    • Joe Horton
      Joe Horton says:

      What the shop owner did, by denying service to them because of her personal beliefs, is akin to not serving a black person a meal. It’s bigotry by definition. She is free to practice her religion as she sees fit. But, as a service provider, that’s where her religious expression rights end. The judge was right. The lawyer was right. The only one violating rights was the shop owner. This is a nation that has freedoms clearly defined in our Constitution. Bigotry is not one of those rights.

      Reply
      • M Lyons
        M Lyons says:

        I get so sick of so-called Christians judging others. It is no ones place but Gods. Do we seriously believe Jesus would not serve someone because of what the do or what they believed in? Quite the opposite. He loved everyone unconditionally. Can’t say the same for this lady. Sad…..

        Reply
        • melinda
          melinda says:

          She does not “not serve” people of different beliefs, but she is choosing not to “contribute” to something she does not believe in: marriage between people of the same gender. It is the BELIEF she is not serving, not the people.

          Reply
          • Joe
            Joe says:

            How is providing flowers as a service contributing to anything? She is not invited into their home to share their private moments. She offers a service to the public. I suppose back when it was ok to tell black people they were not going to be served it was because whites didn’t want to contribute to their blackness.

            Bigotry crosses a line that is clearly defined by law. the florist chose to cross that line by judging others and is now being judged.

        • T. Heim
          T. Heim says:

          I’m afraid you have a complete misunderstanding of scripture, and of the real issue in this case! While Jesus dealt lovingly and respectfully with everyone, he did not ignore their sinful behavior.With the admonition “your sins ate forgiven,”the command to “go and sin no more” always followed. Jesus upheld and reinforced ALL the law and the prophets.
          The shop owner served her client without judgment of his lifestyle. When the client requested her participation in a same sex wedding, a sin in her faith, she has every right to refuse. The client should have respected her decision of conscience, and retained services elsewhere. That is what decent, respectful, tolerant people do! The shop owner would have been wrong if she refused to serve him for anything other than a wedding.

          Marriage has had a specific definition since the beginning of scripture. Marriage means something specific. No group of people have the right to change it for everyone.

          Reply
        • Tionico
          Tionico says:

          He loved everyone, but He never condoned, or even overlooked, anyone’s sin. READ the gospel accounts, and many of the epistles, and you will see Him time and again mingling wiht, feeding, visiting, serving, healing, consoling, helping, honouring, “sinners” of all kinds. You put forth a useless powerleess milquetoast Jesus who never existed. I’d advise you get to know HIM, not the pablum sanitised saccharine versions of Him you’ve been spoonfed from somewhere. READ the four gospel accounts, then come back and try and repeat this drivel. It doesn’t describe HIM at all. Remember, He KNEW who would betray Him, and said so as they all sat down to that last meal….. even identified the scounrel. He did not openly condemn him, run him off, beat him up, try and foil his plot to murder Him. Nope. He simply passed the rotter another piece of bread. And went on with His business.

          I get sick of people who dostort and lie about Him and who He is…… promote fairy tales, vain imaginations….

          Reply
        • Allison
          Allison says:

          Actually, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple because they were defiling it by using the temple in an inappropriate way. I think he would similarly be upset with the way the sacred ordinance of marriage is being defiled today,by both homosexual marriage as well as the way heterosexuals value marriage.

          Reply
      • kathie inwards
        kathie inwards says:

        Serving dinner to a “black person” has nothing to do with her personal beliefs. Why is it that they have Black Clubs at schools, college’s, etc. If we, Caucasians had groups like that then we would be chastised and called bigots or racists. Why can only other nationalities do this? Our Christian beliefs are ours. Nobody has the right to take them away or force us to do something against what the Lord Jesus Christ says. So please stop trying to do that.

        Reply
        • M Lyons
          M Lyons says:

          Kathie? Serving dinner to a black person has nothing to do with her beliefs?? Wow. You are living proof that not all people were born with a brain. Stop bringing race into this debate. What are you? The white Al Sharpton?

          Reply
          • Joe
            Joe says:

            It’s not about race, per sey. It’s drawing a comparison on a more clearly defined example of discrimination. If you can’t connect the dots then perhaps this discussion is a bit too much for you to engage yourself in.

      • Amazed
        Amazed says:

        Typical bogus strawman. There is no biblical pronouncement about not serving someone of a different race. There is no bibilical admonishment about not serving a meal, or giving anything else, to a “black person”. Try again with something a little more cogent.

        Reply
        • Joe
          Joe says:

          It’s not a “bogus strawman” of any kind. It’s the exact same thing, only directed at a different group. And if you really need to defend bigotry with your religion then perhaps your religion is the problem.

          Reply
          • Tionico
            Tionico says:

            Joe, when that black man can decide outside the lunch counter what colour his skin will be that day, before he walks in and sits down, THEN and only then will you have a point. God made that man the way he is. Not so with the sodomite. He has the potential to decide whether he will continue as he has been before he walkes into Arlene’s Flowers. But he does not. Even so, for more than ten years, Mrs. Stutzman was happy to serve these two males, and even became a friend to them. Remember, too, it was not THEY who brought the lawsuit. They have chosen their liffestyle, as Mrs, Stutzman has chosen hers. They only came int comflict when the tawo males came and requested her to support and participate in a part of their lives that God has said somethng about. She would no mroe participate in their abomination than she would partipate in a bank robbery or murder by driving the robber/murderer to and then back home from the scene of his proscribed acitivity. And do not fail to keep in mind that the same God who declares sodomy to be wrong also declares adultery, murder, robbery, to be every bit as wrong.
            You want parellels, there are a few. And none of them come anywhere near the sanctity of a black man wangint to sit in an Applebees and eat a steak. Don’t forget to recall that, before that black man can ENTER that Applebees, he is required to put on a sirt and some shoes. Maybe the next time a black man walks into an Applebees wearing the native consutme from his homeland village (no shirt, no shoes, loose louncloth) he should file a discrimination lawsuit, eh?

      • Mark Christians
        Mark Christians says:

        Your comment is false. Discrimination based on race (an immutable characteristic) is not the equivalent to refuse service based on a Constitutionally protected closely-held religious belief. Attempting to directly equate the two does a disservice to the millions who have truly been discriminated against based on their race; and it does not recognize the rights of all Americans, regardless of religious beliefs.

        As a gay male, I understand the desire of the couple to get married, and in the State of Washington they are entitled to do so. However, that right does not trump then rights of owner of the flower shop. If this had been a public corporation owned by shareholders, this issue would not arise. However, as a privately held company, the owner has operated and should have the right to hold to the tenants of her belief.

        In the discrimination faced by blacks in America in the 1960s and the in case you may alluding to in Atlanta, there was no religious basis for the owners to refuse service to blacks. There was no religious order that held that blacks should be discriminated against or not served. However, in this case there is NO question that the majority of Christian beliefs have long held that homosexuality is a “sin” and that as a Christian, the believer should not “condone” or endorse the sin.

        While I do not believe being gay is a “sin” nor to I believe that a couple committing to a relationship is a “sin” — and that the teaching in this area in many churches is in error, I (nor you nor anyone else) should have the right to use the power of the government to force an individual to change their closely-held religious beliefs. Yet, that is EXACTLY what this case is about – whether the government can force private citizens to go against their closely held religious beliefs.

        I’ve been to the area that this couple lives in. There are other flower shops, many that would have catered (and I suspect that since this case is now two years old) and did cater to the wedding. Instead, this couple and the ACLU in their vindictive spirit has desired to make an “example” here and in doing so, they want the government to violate this lady’s Constitutionally-protected rights. In turn, they have, in my view, become scum and do not deserve respect nor support.

        Reply
        • Joe
          Joe says:

          I disagree completely. Just because your brand of bigotry is sanctioned by the bible doesn’t make it any less than racial discrimination. I think you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of the words used in anti-discrimination laws. If you honestly think there is a special allowance for treating gays as anything less than an equal as opposed to treating someone who is ethnically different just makes you a hypocrite as well as a bigot.

          Reply
          • Max
            Max says:

            First all let me say, I do not think that Mrs. Stutzman will win this case. The odds are stacked against her. The pendulum of intolerance has swung against Christianity and religion in general. I hope she wins, but my guess is she won’t. With that said, often times first thing the homosexual community would like to say is because you do not serve a gay person is that you are a bigot.

            What a shame, seeing that you know nothing about the person you throw such venomous epithets at.

            Clearly, her being their for more than three decades testify to the fact she has done something right. But I suspect, as the ACLU and homosexual community often does, it seeks to destroy any entity from Bed and Breakfasts to Adoption agencies that would not serve them. To put it succinctly: either they want to be seen as victims. If not successful there then they will vilify you and ultimately they are vindictive.

            I have often asked. Why don’t they just start their own instead of destroying one that exists?

            It seems to me, that the thing that we need to be concerned with is the destruction of good business and entities that do not agree with the gay community. To me that is the height of intolerance.

            And then there is the issue of homosexuality not being a choice.

            As a white man, when I wake up in the morning and look into the mirror there is one indisputable fact- I’m white, my biology lets me and all others know that I am a man. I have heard the nature versus nurture argument. But the reality is which ever one you nurture, that is the ones that grow.

            Anatomically, my body is designed to produce children. Something that no two gay persons can ever do.

            So ontologically and biologically, anatomically I am a man. In order to be homosexual, I would have to fight all of those natural endemic qualities to celebrate being homosexual-which means then it is an intentional choice. And there is enough proof to not just suggest, but to demonstrate that those who have forced themselves to function counter to how they were designed has suffered tremendously psychologically. In fact, there is mention of a counter revolution coming to that effect. Will you deny the choice in light of that evidence Ben?

            With that said, the straw man of homosexuality NOT being a choice is faulty at best and illogical at the very worst. Homosexuality is clearly a choice.

            A choice that is now sanctioned by the law. With that said; it still doesn’t give anyone the right to tear down my business in the name of their lifestyle.

            Ben, it seems to me that you are judging her based on her clearly expressed beliefs. You say that you believe that homosexuality is not a choice.

            If it was not a choice, then why did God judge it, and furthermore why didn’t any new testament text endorse it and why did the American Psychological Association (APA) have it removed from the DSM IV after the gay community stacked the board with sympathizers. It was removed not because it was inaccurate Ben. It was removed because homosexuality had become socially acceptable well financed, and legally enforced.

            Every business has the “right” to withhold service. In the United States. For example, “no shoes, no shirts no service” But in Mrs. Stutzman’s case we see clearly it is not her business they are attacking, because if it was so they would have never received it from the beginning. It is HER that they are attacking for her long standing Christian convictions.
            It seems to me, that when ever we start talking about tolerance-there is always INTOLERANCE for the Christians perspective. Immorality is immorality be it adultery, pedophilia, fornication and yes, homosexuality. I have had many clients who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle, and that is up to them. What these(ACLU & Homosexual couple) people are doing is punishing her and that’s wrong-especially when she has served them so faithfully in the past.

          • Joe
            Joe says:

            Max, the law is against her on this case. She has a shop that serves the public and, by Washington State Law, discrimination of any kind is in direct violation of RCW 49.60.030, Article 1 and specifically, section F. Your personal opinion, and the shop owners personal beliefs of the matter on any religious beliefs towards the case is irrelevant. She offers a service to the public. That includes homosexuals. If she doesn’t want to cater to that kind of person then she should not be operating that kind of business.

            RCW 49.60.030
            Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

            (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

            (f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices

            You are free, however, to be any kind of bigot you want to be when not conducting business.

        • Raleigh
          Raleigh says:

          “However, as a privately held company, the owner has operated and should have the right to hold to the tenants of her belief”

          Mark, I agree with this completely.

          I also think we are treading on some dangerous ground when an Attorney General thinks he can seize personal assets and property!!

          Reply
          • Tionico
            Tionico says:

            consdier the US SUpreme Court’s decision regarding ChickFilA and Hobby Lobby. And even the Washignton State SUpreme Court in the matter of the Stormans refusing to carry/sell the abortion pills the mnurder the unborn just as surely as the knife and siction instruments do. THOSE cases were all about personally held religious beliefs of the business owners being protected by the Constittuon. The basis for this case is identical to those metnioned above.

        • Tionico
          Tionico says:

          correctioon, Mark Christians: this pair of males, nor the ACLU, brought that lawsuit. It was initiated solely at the discretion and direction of the Atrtoreny General of the State of Washington. No one else pressed it. Read the record. And THAT is why Mrs, Stutzman responds the way she did. AtG Ferguon is abusing his position of power in bringing this suit, and violating his poath to uphold and edefend the constitutioins of bowth Washington and the US.

          Reply
      • George Long
        George Long says:

        Joe Horton: Should a Muslim or a Jewish caterer be asked to prepare a traditional Hawaiian luau complete with a roast pig. Would you continue your stand, “where her religious expression rights end”?

        Reply
        • Joe
          Joe says:

          That’s a very poor analogy, George. If the Muslims or Jewish caterers provided the service of roast pig, then absolutely. But if they don’t have that on their menu then why would you want them to? I personally love roast pig and would want the best pig roasters to provide their service for such. You wouldn’t go to a pizzeria for sushi, would you? You would go to a florist for a floral arrangement, however. The florist provides flowers and that’s all the customer in question wanted from the florist.

          Reply
          • Tionico
            Tionico says:

            the moslem caterers can buy the pig from the same wholesalers/abattoirs they buy chicken and beef from, and the same tools they have to cook and serve it will also serve to handle the pig. Remember, about two years back, when somali moslem cab drivers in Minneapolis began to refuse fares whenever they learned the passengers had pork products, alcoho, cigarrettes, pet dogs, along with them? The courts and city licensing folks ruled they could not so discriminete against fairs coming from or two the airport.

            This is not parallel, however, as those moslems were not directly affected by the choices of their fares… no one asked them t EAT the oig, DRINK the whiskey, or hold the dog on their laps. Carrying such fares did not compromise their closely held religious tenets, as they were not asaked to participate in the use of those products. Mrs,. Stuttzman WAS being asked to participate in the use of her products to support activity defined as an abomination by her faith. She had freely served these two males for over a decade….. because they took her wares home and did with them as they willed. When it came to their “wedding” however, for her to make up, set, maintain, etc, her flowers as a part of their ceremony celebrating their sodomy, she was thus asked to participate in, condone, agree with, support, assist, in their activity. Back to the moslem cabbies, in no way were these men being asked to participate in the “unclean” use of these products. Merely to tramsport them as a mart of the persons and effects of those they were required to serve under the terms of the cab medallions they purchased from Minneapolis, and to which terms they agreed when they purchased the medallions. Or, as employees of the cab’s owner, as a part of their agreement of employment. Cabs are strictly regulated as a public utility. Flower shops are not.

          • Es Verdad
            Es Verdad says:

            “When it came to their “wedding” however, for her to make up, set, maintain, etc, her flowers as a part of their ceremony celebrating their sodomy, she was thus asked to participate in, condone, agree with, support, assist, in their activity”

            Tionico,

            With all respect, this is a ridiculous statement. I am a Christian. My parents are Christians – my dad is a minister in a conservative church. I became pregnant out of wedlock as the result of bad decisions on my part. My parents were predictably unhappy. However, they love their grandchild and have babysat for that child. No one – and I repeat NO ONE – in the church or outside of it believes for one second that because they watch their grandchild they are condoning, agreeing with, supporting my single parenthood.

            In much the same way, NO ONE I know assumed that the florist who decorated the church for my friends’ wedding was supporting the abortion she had two years ago. That is not what people think when they look at the flowers for a wedding – or the caterer, or the limo driver, or the DJ. Have you ever been to a wedding and heard someone say – “oh, look, Bob’s Limo Service is driving them. That must mean Bob condones murder/agrees with it/supports it because we all know the groom killed two people while driving drunk 5 years ago”? Ever?

        • Joe
          Joe says:

          You can be the biggest bigot on the planet. Nobody is stopping you. But that doesn’t mean your rights to be a bigot supersede rights of people not to be discriminated against. Be a bigot, get judged as a bigot. That goes for anyone’s personal and professional (big stretch of the definition in this case) life.

          Reply
      • Tionico
        Tionico says:

        apples to oranges, a non-sequitur. The black man walking into my restaurant had NAUGHT to do wt=ith the melanin content of his skin.. Nor does he possess any viable option to change it. This is in sharp contrast to the sodomite, who has made a conscious decision to engage in their perversion, and can, at any time, make an equzlly conscious decision to abandon his abomination.

        Realis,e too, that ARlene’s Flowers has NOT refuse to serve these two males for over a decade, happily supplying them their floran needs, and becoming a friend to them. She even took HER trouble to find a different florist who was willing to serve the desires of these two, thus she did not “deprive” them of a thing.
        Understand further, it was not THEY who filed any suit or grievance. It was the Attorney General of the State of Washington who negated his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitutions of both this state, and the nation, and brought suit against her of his own decision. NO ONE WAS HARMED.in the intitial transacion, or lack thereof. But Mrs. Stutzman is seriously harmed for being so bold and daring as to LIVE her own faith, no matter the cost.

        Remember back when the quires first began to holler and scream about the demands they keep their perversion”in the closet” and not let it be seen/known in public? THEY are now demanding that WE, of faith, keep our faith in the closet and not let it be seen or known in pubilc.”
        Sorry, one’s sexual activity is a private matter, and should not be paraded in the public square. That is something you DO, not somehing you ARE. On the toerh hand, a man’s faith is something that defines him, and reaches into every area of his life. Else the One he claims is Lord is not. there is not one square inch of this planet anywhere upon which Jesus does not look and say MINE. But, it may take a while for some, such as our AtG Ferguson, to realise that.

        Reply
  20. el
    el says:

    Two grown men, who have known this woman and have been served by her for years, are taking action against a 70 year old small business woman for not supplying their wishes for their ceremony. Is there no decency in these men, picking on an elderly woman? You do know woman are discriminated against, as well as the elderly. But this agenda only seems to care about their own “hurt” feelings. Be gentlemen, be MEN for goodness sake and help this lady! Stop your self seeking demands. Is this agenda so heartless that they will not consider the individual they are willing to take down? For goodness sake, you can still get your desires satisfied at another shop. This form of force to comply to your every wish really does not endear people to your agenda. Try a muslim shop why don’t you? Or are you fearful of their response?

    Reply
    • jiagap
      jiagap says:

      “be Men” what? isn’t that the issue? These “men” are gender confused, and thus clueless as to what being men should mean..

      Reply
      • Faith
        Faith says:

        You are conflating homosexuality with transgendered. Common mistake. These men are not “gender confused.” They are men. And they are attracted to other men. End of story.

        Reply
        • Tionico
          Tionico says:

          they ARE gender confused, as they do what is clearly agaisnt nature, and that which is not natural to their God-assigned genders. Thus they ARE indeed gender vonfused, the one taking on, falsely, the rold of the woman (or maybe thery trade off, who knows? ) They are thus not fully “men” they are males attempting to play the part of females. Or lames playing the part of the male with another male who is plauying the part of a femals. I think I got thast straight….. real “men” are not attrtacted to other “men”, or if they are, they refuse to act upon it against nature. Both homosexuality/sodomy and “transgendered” are confused… neither is content with the way God maade them, but attempts to play God and act like somethingt they are not, some even going so far in their rebellion as to pay somne huge sums of money to convince a guy with a kinfe to assist in ther rebellion and make of what is one thing another. The surgeon is the least confused.. HE is gettng that for which he is in business. moeny in his bank account. The victims/patients? Further confused, and poorer.

          Reply
    • Tionico
      Tionico says:

      you fail to realise these two males are NOT the ones bringing this suit It is the Attorney General fo the State of Washington. He had no complaint, no cause of action, he took it upon himself to initiate and prosecute this lawsuit, all of his own free will, and agains this oath of office. HE should be recalled. Then disbarred. He is using the law, and his position of power, to discriminate against a harmless old woman.

      When I had my mechanic shop I refused to work on cars made by Renault. Whart, is that disciminatio? You bet it is. Waa it my right> Yup. I know another whop owner who refused to work on water cooled VW’s. Same story. He chasitsed ME for working on one of them, and his words, and my own experience, told me I would not do so in future either.

      Reply
  21. joe baublis
    joe baublis says:

    She mentioned “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment”. Can she prove that her “religion” commands her to discriminate against gays? If not, then she loses because if discrimination is not a religious commandment, then it is actually a personal choice – not a religious one.

    Reply
    • dan
      dan says:

      Not ‘gays’, same sex marriage. That is the issue. She continuously proved that does not ‘discriminate’ against gays. Though it being her business, she should be able to ‘discriminate’ as she chooses.

      Reply
      • Joe
        Joe says:

        It’s still discrimination, as defined by the laws in Washington.

        http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.60.030

        RCW 49.60.030
        Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

        (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

        (a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

        (b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

        (c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

        (d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

        (e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

        (f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices; and

        (g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

        (2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of this chapter shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).

        (3) Except for any unfair practice committed by an employer against an employee or a prospective employee, or any unfair practice in a real estate transaction which is the basis for relief specified in the amendments to RCW 49.60.225 contained in chapter 69, Laws of 1993, any unfair practice prohibited by this chapter which is committed in the course of trade or commerce as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, is, for the purpose of applying that chapter, a matter affecting the public interest, is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business, and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce.

        Reply
          • Joe
            Joe says:

            The law is based on the rights as listed in our Constitution, Wendy. If you have a problem with that then perhaps a country that imposes something like sharia law would be more in tune with your sensibilities.

  22. stephen proper gredler
    stephen proper gredler says:

    Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. GEE WHIZ…It appears the lady might have a point! If Washington State’s Constitution actually means what the statement says…I think Mr. Ferguson should not sell that freedom, either…

    Reply
    • Paula
      Paula says:

      He isn’t. The men bought flowers there all the time without a problem. What you are suggesting is that he has the freedom to MAKE her do something that violates her rights… because he has the right to have a ceremony doesn’t mean he has the right to make any particular person participate in it.

      It does show the true character of these men that they can turn on a dime after being served by her without a problem for years and suddenly want to destroy her entire life. Who is being intolerant here? All she did was take the option not to participate. Which she could also have done by saying she was already doing too many weddings that day, but instead she chose to respect them by being honest about her beliefs and expecting them to be mature about it.

      Reply
  23. John
    John says:

    I think it’s obvious the AG is not interested in constitutional law, civil liberty or religious freedom, but is merely grandstanding for the “gay” community for political reasons. Perhaps he is attempting to enhance his image to elicit their support for some future political aspiration.

    Reply
    • Tim Samples
      Tim Samples says:

      John, I’m afraid you are only half right, and the half that you mentioned is the least worrisome. Yes, every appointee of Obama was chosen for their loyal commitment to support his political power. However, unbridled power is what a Marxist seeks (Obama). He is simply using gays to gain more power. Once he is unchecked by laws and has oppressed his opposition, gays will be unimportant to him. He will discard them, shut down the liberal media and replace them with a regime-oriented propaganda machine, and outlaw religion. Although, in Obama’s case, Islam might be given “favored” religion status and able to continue its practice. That will actually mean that we’d likely see gays involuntarily flying off of high buildings.

      Reply
      • GP
        GP says:

        You guys and your amazing bull manure. Where do you get this drivel? What an incredible lack of basic knowledge, observation, common sense… So amazing that people actually think this stuff up.

        Reply
        • veritas
          veritas says:

          You seem to be under the impression we care that we don’t meet whatever it is you think counts as “basic knowledge.” So you are incredulous. So what? Who cares?

          Well, no one here cares. That sort of emotionally vapid approach to complex and important moral matters might work in hermetically sealed liberal enclaves (my days at NYU come to mind), but it has no sway on those who don’t already hold your view of the world.

          Try some arguments based on shared moral premises (if any exist at this point). You might be surprised how far they go. Otherwise, you will find that the outrage machine tends to produce the shallowest of converts to your cause, people who will abandon you at the first sign of the culture moving in another direction.

          Reply
          • TruthisWhat
            TruthisWhat says:

            Veritas, that reply could be easily used to defend either side of these arguments and be/sound equally relevant and truthful for either side. Thus, I agree with the poster who said it was a well written response. Fully functional in dual mode.

        • John
          John says:

          You clearly don’t understand the quote the lady made from the Washington Constitution.
          Nor do you understand the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

          Reply
        • Paula
          Paula says:

          “Where do you get this drivel?”

          It’s how politicians work. Haven’t you noticed? The GOP does the same thing many times.

          Reply
    • GP
      GP says:

      I think it’s obvious you don’t know civil law from JLaw.

      “Marriage” isn’t about love.
      You can be in love and not be married.
      You can be married and not be in love.

      “Marriage” isn’t about sex.
      You can have sex and not be married.
      You can be married and not have sex.

      “Marriage isn’t about morality.
      You can have morals and not be married.
      You can be married and have no morals.

      “Marriage” isn’t about children.
      You can have children and not be married.
      You can be married and not have children.

      “Marriage” isn’t about religion.
      You can be religious and not be married.
      You can be married and not be religious.

      “Marriage” isn’t about tradition.
      You can be traditional and not be married.
      You can be married and not be traditional.

      “Marriage” isn’t about happiness.
      You can be happy without being married.
      You can be married and not be happy.

      “Marriage” isn’t about weddings ceremonies.
      You can hold a ceremony and not be married.
      You can be married with no ceremony.

      “Marriage” isn’t about rings.
      You can wear rings without being married.
      You can be married without exchanging rings.

      “Marriage” isn’t about vows.
      You can make vows without being married.
      You can be married without vows, only an affirmation; “I do”.

      Supporters and non-supporters both need to learn what marriage ISN’T before trying to argue what it IS.

      Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people and available equally as guaranteed by the Constitution. Any laws forbidding gay marriage are unconstitutional from their inception. Gay marriage has always been legal in the USA. It has been only the bigoted majority preventing the indictment of the officials who acquiesce to the discrimination.

      Any discussions about marriage from a religious perspective are applicable only within the limited scope of that particular religion and carry no legal bearing. They are therefore moot in regards to the legality of marriage as it pertains to civil rights. All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma, tradition and family values are CULTURAL MYTHOLOGY and are not related to the legal fiction called marriage.

      A quote: “Religious arguments against same-sex marriage do not pass the Lemon Test, a three-pronged legal requirement which stipulates that a) the government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose, b) the government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and c) the government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. I am not sure I have heard anyone make a case against same-sex marriage that did not invoke religion. The second that your argument mentions God, or references a biblical passage, I cannot entertain your argument. As a Humanist, I reject supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition. Your religious arguments against same-sex marriage belong on that heap of nonsense. They have no basis in reality, are not supported by the science, and have no place in legislation. Unfortunately, anti-LGBT legislators cynically take great care to ensure that the language in their legislation is not based on a religious ground — even though we all know it is rooted in religious dogma. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

      Reply
      • Ranger G
        Ranger G says:

        And how does the inherently sterile same-sex couple produce “kin”? And under your model, what principled reason is there for the state to recognize only marriages with two partners? Why should the state recognize only one marriage per person? Why should the state impose consanguinity laws on marriage?

        Reply
        • GP
          GP says:

          You can have your sensibilities in the privacy of your own house. When you are operating a public business you are subject to public laws. You folks keep conflating your beliefs with law.

          I reject your too blunt statement since I support non-discrimination there is no need to be nuanced about it.

          You’re self-centric views do not take into account the fact that your views are not the only views, though they are the narrowest and most hurtful to others who don’t fit within them.

          Reply
        • GP
          GP says:

          Kin is not a requirement of marriage or it would be stated so in the law. I am straight and married and will not be having children. Do you have a problem with that?

          The “model” is the function of government to promote stability by encouraging pair bonds. That they chose two people is clearly a societal norm. That they can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation is a feature of our laws. That most people don’t know that is a feature of our educational system.

          Consanguinity is simply genetics. That doesn’t apply in gay marriage as y’all love to point out.

          Reply
          • MR
            MR says:

            GP,
            I am not buying what you are selling. You are trying to sell the re-definition of marriage ( as I suspect you try to redefine anything you don’t like )according to what has come after the act, hundreds of years after the act, as if the concept of legality is a creed. It is not. You are the excellent product of our public schools and learned only how to argue a point, any point, with an adversarial argument that has no real substance to it except to defy the conventions where you think the “holes”are – even if you have to dig them yourself. Your highest attainment is to elicit silence and slack jaws from those who are stymied in the face of the open rebellion of the man who reasons himself and anyone who listens to him too long before realizing what is going on: running everyone around in circles. You think a debate is won by redefining all the common sense that supports the opposing position. That is not only unproductive, it is cowardly and it is dishonest.

          • clh
            clh says:

            Interesting idea — that the state wants to promote stability by encouraging pair bonds. Do you have anything to reference that? Is there any evidence that it’s true or that it works? I would alternatively suggest that the State couldn’t care less about paired bonds, but they do care very much about identifying people responsible for taking care of babies (or widows), because the State can’t afford to take care of all of them. As you said about inheritance and taxes and financial support, the State likes promotes marriage because it identifies parents that the State can try to make responsible for children. If there aren’t any children, then the State wouldn’t care if two people marry or live together without marriage or have a 1-to-many relationship or have same-sex relations or have different sex partners every night (unless it becomes a public health situation, but that’s a different topic).

      • Bayou Deacon
        Bayou Deacon says:

        @GP, since you don’t want to invoke a god into this cup of soup, maybe your point should be to come up with a new ‘term’ other than “marriage” for a legal union between two, three or however many entities, people, corporations. The term “marriage” does indicate by definition (historically) the union of one man and one woman and so, whether you like that or not, marriage already has a definition and the argument is to change that historical definition. How about a new word? For this new entity?

        Reply
        • veritas
          veritas says:

          Bayou, your otherwise reasonable proposition will be ignored because their ultimate goal is cultural accommodation. LGBT activists want nothing less than for society to fully celebrate their deviant sexual practices, and appropriating the term “marriage” is too useful for their ends.

          Reply
        • GP
          GP says:

          Bayou – Your flaw is that your world requires God to be involved. Since the rest of the world not under your religious restrictions also gets married, and since the law is secular and independent of your god, your requirement to reserve marriage for you and your religion is not really a thing. You’re simply being self-centric.

          Marriage is a secular arrangement that may or may not have religious associations. It is not a religious institution.

          Historically, we had slavery, women couldn’t vote and interracial marriage was illegal. More to the point, gay marriage has always been legal since there is no compelling secular reason to keep two people of the same sex from applying for inheritance and visitation rights. The only reason it’s not been practiced is because the bigotry outweighed the justice of enforcing their rights.

          Religion doesn’t own the word marriage. That’s just you’re belief. I’m an atheist and I’m married. I’ll thank you to keep your opinions out of my legal status.

          Reply
          • R u shur
            R u shur says:

            GP,
            “Your flaw” is that you deny your Creator, who gave His Son’s life for you to rescue you from yourself.

          • clh
            clh says:

            That argument falls apart because of linguistics. I’m not saying that there’s nothing to your argument, and it’s interesting, but you’ll have to find another way to present it. Because as originally defined in America/England, the English word marriage does have a religious foundation. I could make the same point you do and say that just because Hindus and Chinese and other cultures using cross-gender pairing that looks like what we called marriage, then it’s been conveniently translated as marriage. And I could even agree with you that what they have lacks the same religious basis that what we call marriage has, and when you come up with a new word to describe the civil quasi-marriage contract that you promote, then what these other cultures are doing may more appropriately be translated as your new word.

        • GP
          GP says:

          Actually you don’t live under Sumerian rule, do you? You live under the Constitution, and marriage in the USA is subject to the Constitution, not the bible. The sooner you folks realize the difference the better.

          Reply
          • clh
            clh says:

            Now there’s a dilemma. You claim that we live under the Constitution and not under the Bible. Except that the Declaration of Independence claims that its authority and our independence come from God. Maybe if you argue that the Constitution isn’t an extension or a result of the Declaration of Independence, then you can make the case that the Constitution derives its authority from itself or from the people who are then subject to it. That might work.

            But, in either case, it’s not an accurate description of how Christians must live. We are bound to follow the laws of both kingdoms, God’s and the State’s.

          • Joe
            Joe says:

            CLH, the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution. One tells England that they have no authority over the colonies set up in what was to become America. The other defines the rights and freedom of Americans. Please familiarize yourself with the contents contained within the documents.

            Here in America The Constitution trumps the Bible because the Constitution is for all Americans whereas the Bible is for Christians. That means the Bible is not the law of the land. Discrimination laws are clear and it’s only fitting that those who judge others get judged in return… sounds familiar. Where have I heard that sentiment before?

          • Pal
            Pal says:

            If by “standing up for themselves” you mean disrespecting another persons views and not having the sensitivity to shop elsewhere that is intolerant behavior plain and simple. The freedom of the shop owner has been completely removed by this ruling and is totalitarian in nature. Hang your head in shame Mr Ferguson. America, wake up and stop this nonsense before you lose all of your democratic freedoms!

      • debra roberts
        debra roberts says:

        Ummmm setting aside your plagarized but still very clever attempt to educate us about what marriage is and what it isn’t, you are absolutely wrong about science. The Bible is repeatedly proving science wrong, not the other way around. Given your obvious and utter complete lack of respect for and acknowledgement of the Creator of the universe I will not cast my pearls before swine so to speak. However should you ever care to know the truth of the matter, you can google it for yourself. There are many websites that show where science has been wrong and the Bible has been right about scientific matters. What I do not understand is why you are even on this website. Your anti Christian sentiment can be posted on an incredible number of sites where you will have many supporters. All you are trying to do is argue with people who already have the spirit of the living God within them. You will get absolutely nowhere. No human being is going to take the Spirit of God away from the children of God. So why don’t you do us all a favor and post your erudite and wise-in-your-own-eyes communiqués elsewhere where they will be appreciated and lauded by those of your ilk. We know all we need to know about you. Many people will be praying that the Holy Spirit will back in you to himself. Whether you like it or not. It will happen. Jesus reveals himself to every man. The choice is yours. No bet as in the case of an atheist is still a bet. Everyone bets. we have bet on the living God and despite your tone and disrespect will continue to pray for your salvation.

        Reply
      • Rich
        Rich says:

        GP if that is the case, then why is the LGBT community so abhorrently against the concept of a Civil Union, which would entitle them to all of those legal standings? There is more to this than meets the eye….at least your eye.

        Reply
      • Ralph Howarth
        Ralph Howarth says:

        The federal constitution was written as a Common Law document where homosexual “buggery” sodomy behavior is a sex crime. And same sex marriage has been against the law because it is marriage

        Oh, and I love the appeals on same sex marriage before the court. When asked just when it occurred that same sex marriage suddenly became a constitutional right. And all the LGBT advocates could not come up with an answer.

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”–John Adams

        Reply
      • Angela
        Angela says:

        What are you smoking? By your facile argumentation, I could add, marriAge isn’t about property, inheritance, citizenship or kingship, all of which.can.be established or transferred by all sorts of contracts.

        Reply
      • clh
        clh says:

        GP, for saying a lot about what marriage is and isn’t, you sure seem to not understand marriage. You do a good job accurately describing the civil benefits of the state of marriage. What you overlook is that the civil arena appropriate marriage from religion. While I won’t completely dispute the crass conclusion that your statements lead to — that gays only desire marriage because of the financial benefits, I feel that you’re overlooking that many do it to try and latch on to some of the same cultural benefits that they see coming from marriage’s religious basis, and some even seem to delight in doing it just to harass Christians. But anyway, I’m pleased to concur with your argument, as it does a good job defending Christian marriage. Religion defined marriage. The State borrowed it because it was convenient to use for inheritance, taxing, and financial support of families. And if the State wants to confer those benefits to partners of the same gender, or even to partners of different species or biological kingdoms, then the State has that authority. But, by definition, it’s not marriage. It’s something new that isn’t marriage. And even if every judge in your State rules that PI = 3 and every State legislature passes a bill that repeals gravity, what you’re describing still isn’t marriage.

        By the way, I appreciate your quote from someone stating to be a proud, close-minded bigot, though I don’t see the relevance. I also kinda doubt that the person making that statement truly has rejected pseudo-science, supernaturalism, and superstition because that would mean that he is an outlier; we have ample evidence that atheists are more likely to believe in pseudo-science, supernaturalism, and superstition than Christians. Humanist atheists (what a contradiction) have their own set of faiths and assumptions and are just as easily mis-led as Christians. As you’ve once again demonstrated.

        Reply
      • Larry Johnstone
        Larry Johnstone says:

        Marriage is simply a word to describe a male and female commitment to be one.
        And vows are important to ethical people.

        Marriage is not….blah blah blah

        Reply
      • jack
        jack says:

        “Gay marriage isn’t about love – it’s about forcing normal people to accept Queer deviant sexual behavior in a re-definition of “marriage” that no one wants. and about a tiny percentage of the population gaining the financial benefits of conventional “marriage”- furthermore, most of America has already rejected “gay marriage”

        Reply
        • Raleigh
          Raleigh says:

          Yes, indeed, Jack. Thankfully we have our dear STATE and dear LEADERS to force us how to think and how to behave, because they are so morally superior to all of us and are entitled to sue us all for our hard earned savings and homes!!
          sarcasm intended…

          Reply
  24. Juan Yoelvis
    Juan Yoelvis says:

    I escaped Fidel Castro’s Tyranny 6 years ago, and now I find this country and their leaders following the footsteps of the Cuban dictatorial regime model along with the nonsense and illegal Impositions and regulations, persecution to Christians, destruction of the biblical institution of the family, you mention it…

    Reply
    • GP
      GP says:

      Sorry, you’re in the wrong country. You’re looking for a theocracy. The USA is a Constitutional Republic. Consider your education, then consider getting a proper one here to compare and contrast your world with THE world.

      Reply
      • veritas
        veritas says:

        I have to question whether you even know what a theocracy is if you think allowing a baker to refuse service to someone on religious grounds is anywhere near traditional theocratic rule. (Ironic, considering you want Juan to reconsider his education…)

        But I bet you picked that word because it was inflammatory and signals your participation in the right social circles, not because it is an accurate description of the policy preferences you oppose.

        Reflexive slurs are for fools and degenerates. Which one are you?

        Reply
    • debra roberts
      debra roberts says:

      Yes, we have freedom of speech in so far as it does not disagree with the thought police. However God is still on the throne and his eyes are roving to and fro. He sees the faithful and will bless them despite the persecution they endure. We have seen nothing yet.

      Reply
    • SC
      SC says:

      SC Back in the day it started out, “Dearly Beloved, We are here to join this man and this woman in HOLY MATRIMONY” Marriage is about being joined together as a man and a woman in the eyes of God. If others want to be joined, why didn’t they expand on their partnership law that was in place instead of running over what is thought to be a Christian union. It seems like that would have been easy and everyone could have had what is right in their eyes.

      Reply
      • veritas
        veritas says:

        Does a Muslim baker have the right to refuse a French expat from ordering a cake that has a cartoon mocking the prophet Mohammed?

        Religious sensibilities are no longer respected in our society. I would bake a cake for a gay couple, but let those who do not wish to simply refuse such services. We live in a society where there are plenty of people who would take their business. The law is too blunt an instrument to use in these cases, and, furthermore, in many of these cases, is an instrument of petty vindictiveness. Many gay couples simply can’t stand the idea that someone disapproves of their sexual lifestyle, and they and their allies want such people to be banished from polite society. Sorry, but many Americans have no interest in that arrangement, even if we will tolerate (but not celebrate) gay “marriage.”

        Reply
        • clh
          clh says:

          Veritas, I think you’ve mentioned an important aspect, and it’s why I think that ultimately the so-called gay marriage will become the law of the land. (Though I’m not sure how this issue of Christian-bashing will play out.) But since 1/2% of women are gay and 2% of men are gay, hardly anyone outside of that community, the media, devout Christians/Muslims/Jews/Mormons, and religious-haters care enough to get involved. I suspect it becomes the law of the land just from massive indifference. Although I can see a scenario where the gay activists overplay it and become so annoying through cases like this that the massive indifference turns against them, having a low level hostility instead of the acceptance.
          As a counter-case, contrast it with what’s happening with abortion, and I expect that experiment to go the way of American slavery. Even though the two topics have the same immediate reaction that “there’s something wrong about that,” there’s little indifference regarding abortion, the science is against it, and the victims lose their lives instead of merely not being able to visit partners in hospitals or inherit from them.

          Reply
    • Bradster
      Bradster says:

      I’m still waiting for the first atheist baker/florist/photographer to refuse service to a christian couple because they find christianity offensive.

      That shouldn’t be a problem, should it? Quid pro quo and all that.

      Reply
  25. Jeff Brown
    Jeff Brown says:

    Ironic you should mention pride. There used to be a; live and let live attitude among the LGBT community, now there is only hubris against others. A desire to force them into the closet, if they won’t celebrate what they clearly disagree with. You are under the law of the land, she is appealing to the Law of Sovereign of the Cosmos. How narrow minded it is to call evil good and good evil.

    Reply
  26. Mary Baker
    Mary Baker says:

    So many people ask how does same sex marriage impact them. Well there’s your answer. The invention of this farce of marriage, causes oppression and manipulation for everyone else. Now we see it’s evil and I hope that everyone will understand that they don’t want equality they want dominion.

    I am so proud of this family for standing against these evil people and I hope the people of Washington State will fire every liberal in office.

    Reply
      • veritas
        veritas says:

        Nah, evil is relative. At least that’s what all the secular people tell me.

        Funny how imperialistic secularism becomes when it comes to sexuality.

        Reply
          • veritas
            veritas says:

            Talk about nonsensical.

            You want to say Mary is evil, but I doubt you have any objective basis to do so other than your private feelings. If morality is subjective, what Mary does is only evil to you and a tiny portion of the world. What you should be saying is that you dislike what Mary is doing, since that is all morality comes down to in our secular world.

          • GP
            GP says:

            It’s an evil tennis ball, bouncing as freely as seriously as either party wields it.

            This won’t be a deep debate. I’ve had those. Just planting the seeds of thought drive-by fashion. If you wanted to do good and debate, read what I’ve posted and debate the others here using my material. See if you can’t apply the law in popping their one way thought bubbles.

  27. Wittenberg
    Wittenberg says:

    She isn’t trying to establish a right to religious discrimination in public at all. Her right to conduct her own affairs according to her own conscience has always been protected until recently. Same-sex marriage is newer than the invention of the cell phone, and so it is bound to set up a conflict over whose right is the greater one. It’s not intellectually honest to act as if she is attempting to establish something in law that is brand new and hasn’t been commonplace for centuries in the British common law tradition already like the rights to conscience and free association.

    Reply
    • GP
      GP says:

      Her own affairs ends at the threshold of her business. Once she applied to conduct business under the laws of the state she subjected herself to those laws, plain and simple. This nonsense of you should be able to do whatever you want whenever is Libertarian fantasy encroaching on civility.

      Reply
          • clh
            clh says:

            And as you’ve pointed out regarding slavery and interracial marriage bans, we’ve had laws in the past that were found to be oppressive or “wrong” or just plain undesirable. They’ve been voted out. So trying to close debate by saying “she has to follow the law” is as valid as telling Rosa Parks “follow the law.”

            It seems to me you don’t like what’s being argued, so you’d rather just repeat that you’re arguing something different and think that’ll make everyone shut up.

      • Mary Baker
        Mary Baker says:

        Again,

        It is evil to purposely deceive, oppress and manipulate people into doing what you want them to do. First thing, 37 years ago when Mrs. Baronelle first started doing business it was not illegal for her to deny anyone business. So the state has changed their supposed laws and that is not fair to any business owner. If she started her business in a state whose values supported her right to do business in the manner in which she began it is dishonest for that state then to turn around, change their laws and then hold business owners to their now new laws. We can not do that in any business agreement. If I began a relationship with a certain understanding, and someone change their mind in the process then that person has breached the contract. Mrs. Baronelle should sue the State of Washington for breach of contract in doing business with the state of Washington, and she should demand that they prove to her where in their Constitution 30 years ago did it say she could not refuse service to gays.

        Reply
  28. Patrick Callahan
    Patrick Callahan says:

    Freedom of association and free exercise of religion are constitutional concepts that are being ignored. She may be headed for a fall, not for pride, but for standing on upon legal principal in a lawless society.

    Reply
      • Jack Reacher
        Jack Reacher says:

        GP, see the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Free Exercise Clause: —all people have an equality of rights to practice their faiths.

        Reply
        • GP
          GP says:

          What actually applicable legal principle. There’s more than one you know, and you are leaving many of them out. The First Amendment isn’t what’s being challenged here. It’s not a First Amendment issue.

          That you argue it is is indicative of your lack of understanding. I refer you to my other posts.

          Reply
    • jack
      jack says:

      There is no “discrimination!! any two people can get married as long as they are of the opposite sex and are of consenting age…

      Reply
  29. Agamotto Vishanti
    Agamotto Vishanti says:

    And so rather than running her business legally just by not offering things to the general public she feels compelled to religiously discriminate about like wedding floral services, a mere 3% of her business previously, she has doubled down on helping those with an agenda trying to establish a right to religious discrimination in a public offer contrary to the federal and state constitutions and state law, and by doing so risking her very livelihood.

    Her pride will be her downfall.

    Reply
        • Mike
          Mike says:

          Equality under the law is not the point here GP.

          The point is that if those homosexuals wanted to refuse her as a Christian if they owed a beef joint and she came in with a church and started praying at the tables, if they kicked her out and she took them to court she would lose. They would make up some nonsense that she isn’t allowed to pray in public.

          Yet she is not discriminating against them. She already said she would serve them. She just wont do it for a WEDDING. Do you not see this?

          She cannot, under our Constitution, be forced to do something against her religious convictions.

          I mean this is absurd that you cannot see this and think the law protects in this case. There is no harm here. There is ZERO attempts from Stutzman to stop this person or get in the way of this person pursuing their happiness and there is no threat to their life nor their liberties.

          It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

          The Pursuit of happiness is not about what others refuse to do for you. It is about you pursuing what makes you happy even in a diverse world.

          Those Homosexuals have that right. And this is not a violation of that right.

          Reply
    • Jef
      Jef says:

      PRIDE?
      No, it’s principles and freedom from religious prosecution. We give up one ‘measly’ principle today what will be the one tomorrow and the next day?
      Standing up for a principle has nothing to with pride but everything to do with character and conviction.

      The gay couple and the attorney general are the ones using pride here. The couple could have used another florist, one with beliefs similar to theirs. The attorney general is throwing his weight around and deciding law on his own. That’s PRIDE.

      Reply
    • Matt
      Matt says:

      How are tyrannical, left-wing fundamentalist like yourself not discriminating against her religious convictions? These hardened liberal bullies have targeted a small business owner, attempting to force her to renounce her religious beliefs. Your reply is dubious and ignorant: you said that she is “helping those with an agenda”?! This makes absolutely no sense. First, it’s not who she’s helping (all straight people have an anti-gay agenda?), it’s who she refuses to concede to. Second, these fascist of the radical left are the one’s with an anti-Christian agenda. What a sad, sick joke. They’re attempting to trample the constitution and force a lady out of business just to marginalize and silence those religious voices of dissent which question the amoral sexual orthodoxy of the left.

      Reply
      • GP
        GP says:

        Tone it down Matt. You’re tinfoil is too tight. Take a course in basic law before you profess to use it in a sentence.

        “Marriage” isn’t about love.
        You can be in love and not be married.
        You can be married and not be in love.

        “Marriage” isn’t about sex.
        You can have sex and not be married.
        You can be married and not have sex.

        “Marriage isn’t about morality.
        You can have morals and not be married.
        You can be married and have no morals.

        “Marriage” isn’t about children.
        You can have children and not be married.
        You can be married and not have children.

        “Marriage” isn’t about religion.
        You can be religious and not be married.
        You can be married and not be religious.

        “Marriage” isn’t about tradition.
        You can be traditional and not be married.
        You can be married and not be traditional.

        “Marriage” isn’t about happiness.
        You can be happy without being married.
        You can be married and not be happy.

        “Marriage” isn’t about weddings ceremonies.
        You can hold a ceremony and not be married.
        You can be married with no ceremony.

        “Marriage” isn’t about rings.
        You can wear rings without being married.
        You can be married without exchanging rings.

        “Marriage” isn’t about vows.
        You can make vows without being married.
        You can be married without vows, only an affirmation; “I do”.

        Supporters and non-supporters both need to learn what marriage ISN’T before trying to argue what it IS.

        Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people and available equally as guaranteed by the Constitution. Any laws forbidding gay marriage are unconstitutional from their inception. Gay marriage has always been legal in the USA. It has been only the bigoted majority preventing the indictment of the officials who acquiesce to the discrimination.

        Any discussions about marriage from a religious perspective are applicable only within the limited scope of that particular religion and carry no legal bearing. They are therefore moot in regards to the legality of marriage as it pertains to civil rights. All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma, tradition and family values are CULTURAL MYTHOLOGY and are not related to the legal fiction called marriage.

        A quote: “Religious arguments against same-sex marriage do not pass the Lemon Test, a three-pronged legal requirement which stipulates that a) the government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose, b) the government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and c) the government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. I am not sure I have heard anyone make a case against same-sex marriage that did not invoke religion. The second that your argument mentions God, or references a biblical passage, I cannot entertain your argument. As a Humanist, I reject supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition. Your religious arguments against same-sex marriage belong on that heap of nonsense. They have no basis in reality, are not supported by the science, and have no place in legislation. Unfortunately, anti-LGBT legislators cynically take great care to ensure that the language in their legislation is not based on a religious ground — even though we all know it is rooted in religious dogma. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

        Reply
        • Tim Headley
          Tim Headley says:

          You have stated, at least twice, “Any laws forbidding gay marriage are unconstitutional from their inception. Gay marriage has always been legal in the USA.” Are you o.k. with my being married to my two dogs? I would like for them to enjoy the benefits of spousal health care, and spousal social security benefits. Please tell me if the State of Washington will issue a marriage certificate to my two dogs and me. By the way, I am also married to a female human…

          Reply
        • LN
          LN says:

          GP We aren’t discussing what marriage is or isn’t we are discussing the right of a business owner to refuse business. What are your qualifications for discussing law ? Have you owned a business ?

          Reply
        • Cherri
          Cherri says:

          Yes, Jesus loved everyone but did not condone everyone’s actions. Everything he said was parallel with his father’s word, AKA the Bible. If you are a Christian you truly believe what is written. You cannot spread the word or God’s love with a hateful, vicious heart and people who do that, I don’t believe are Christians. On the other hand, this woman who would not waiver on something that was against her core belief system, did not show hatred but because she did not bend to support another’s belief, she is thrown under a bus. This was not about them as a human being, this was about her and her belief. I am guessing her homosexual friends who know this woman’s heart, know there was no animosity toward the people wanting the cake at all but understood she could not participate in something that goes against what she believes in. Why is it a rule that I have to believe in everything that others believe in or I am a bigot or hypocrite but others are free to condemn my belief? I know the answer, it’s in the Bible. Yes, I am a Christian and some of my best friends have been homosexual and they KNOW that even though I don’t believe in the life style, I love them dearly. I do believe there will be judgement but not by me. As a Christian, I must speak what is true to me, but you can embrace it or turn away from it, I am here just to spread what I believe is the truth, what’s written in the Bible; God’s word. I am not going to take you to court, or ruin your life. I am secure in what I believe and if you don’t believe the same, that’s your business. And in answer to the “What would Jesus Do” replies, Jesus would straight out tell people what the truth according to God is and not sugar coat a thing. He would not worry about being politically correct, but Biblically correct.

          Reply
    • Lucia
      Lucia says:

      Dear Agamotto, why are her actions on her belief discriminatory and your opinion to force her to do what she does not believe in, not discriminatory? Fairness is a two way street and both views must be respected.

      Reply
      • Agamotto Vishanti
        Agamotto Vishanti says:

        Why are her actions discriminatory? A customer came in to buy an advertised product and was told they couldn’t because they didn’t pass a belief test of a belief they don’t obviously share.

        And no she accepting the Attorney General’s offer wouldn’t force her to do anything – fi she can’t sell wedding arrangements to the general public she need not sell them at all. As the ruling pointed out they account for less than 3% of her business. She could run her business legally and in compliance with her religious conscience just by not selling something it seems she isn’t selling right now anyway.

        Fairness is a two way street – the customer has a right to expect a public accommodation to obey the law, the business doesn’t have to sell anything they don’t want to sell as a public accommodation. But make the offer to the public then the public that responds to the offer must be treated legally and fairly which means no religious tests, no telling them their wedding isn’t a real wedding.

        Reply
          • clh
            clh says:

            Good question, Veritas.
            I see that GP didn’t have an answer for that and could only deflect the question. It seems that the answer he felt was correct would undermine his position on this issue.

            He may accurately argue that it’s not a pertinent question because he’s only arguing what the law is, and you’re introducing a case not covered by the law. And that again shows he’s either ignoring (or ignorant) that we’re discussing how to implement/change the law and whether it’s a “good” law – does it accomplish beneficial results. And, as such, your question is extremely pertinent.

        • clh
          clh says:

          I hear you. I agree that I think she’ll get beaten down, because the AG/Judge decide to enforce that law/legal principle in favor of conflicting laws/legal principles. Eventually, it’ll require a higher ruling, I believe, and I wouldn’t know which way to wager on the outcome.

          I admire Mrs. Stutzman for being so principled. I’d like to think I’m that strong, but I’m probably not. Sure, I’m a non-conformist at heart (it’s part of the American culture to naturally be non-conformist; all of our ancestors were non-conformist enough to leave their country), but I’m more of a passive non-conformist that a direct con-conformist as she is. I’d probably provide floral arrangement, but it wouldn’t be a good one.
          – “I told them them that I was nervous about this job and that it might not turn out well.”
          – “I don’t do non-religious weddings, so I don’t have any experience in it.”
          – “I tried my best, but it was really stressful to me whenever I tried working on this project. I couldn’t concentrate. It just made me cry, and I wanted to finish it as fast as I could. I really felt sick whenever I had to work on this project. The whole time, all I could think about was how I guilty I felt for being part of this bogus ceremony. I’m just glad it’s behind me.”
          – “I don’t understand why they hate me so much and want to cause me so much stress and suffering. I gave them the names of colleagues who do this all the time, but it’s like they just have some irrational malice to hurt me.”
          And if I were in her business, all of those statements would be true.

          Reply
      • GP
        GP says:

        It’s called basic legal principles. Ignorance of said principles does not excuse her discrimination.

        Would you enter someone’s house and act according to your beliefs in direct violation of the homeowners “laws”? You don’t voluntarily enter into a legal contract with the state and then get to disregard state laws just because you don’t agree with them.

        It’s amazing the lack of basic common sense on these boards.

        Reply
        • veritas
          veritas says:

          “Common sense” according to your particular, Western, secularist vision of the world. Your posts are as vacuous as a politician appeal to “freedom” to pass the Patriot Act, assuming everything in contention and claiming those who oppose it are morally deficient.

          If the law is what makes something right, then we should just stack the courts with conservative justices who rule against gay marriage. Nothing objectively wrong with that on your scheme.

          Reply
          • GP
            GP says:

            Bah, have you seen this board?

            And bah, the courts are already stacked with conservatives, conservatives who still can’t re-write the Constitution despite their desire to.

        • Mike
          Mike says:

          The States laws cannot violate the Constitution. She did not say that she would not serve people of the LBGT community. She said she would not serve them to help facilitate their beliefs.

          There is a difference. You just cant see it because you are obviously more interested in seeing harm come to a Christian than you are to see the difference in what is really going on here.

          Reply
  30. joseph komblevicz
    joseph komblevicz says:

    God does say in His Word that in the last days we will be living in a perverse and wicked generation. He also says that when we are ruled by Godly people we are better off. Apparently that is not the case these days. This once great country, on the brink of financial ruin – in my humble opinion – has become abominable in some of it’s practices to make intolerable things tolerable and wrong things right. This country was founded on Godly principals and if they choose to ignore Him and His word they are only going to incur His wrath – from which there is no escape. So feel free to abuse your power by giving more credence to reprobate ways of living and ignore the One who gave us all life, thereby, bringing condemnation on us all. All for what – a lousy $2001 and trying to force this woman to give up her livelihood. They should be ashamed and embarrassed to call themselves American. As business owners we should be free to refuse service to anyone we so choose for any reason we choose. What they don’t realize is that they are playing with fire and not just any fire but FIRE FROM HEAVEN. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah when God rained fire from heaven and utterly destroyed both cities. Not only that but turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for just looking back as they were leaving. God will not be mocked .

    Reply
  31. Owl
    Owl says:

    Fight the good fight for the true faith. Hold tightly to the eternal life to which God has called you, which you have confessed so well before many witnesses.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] promptly refused, and did so quite stridently via letter. Joe Carter has already pointed to that response, but given the key themes and tensions […]

  2. […] subsequent day, Stutzman sent a letter to Ferguson rejecting his allotment and saying that a allotment would have compulsory her to […]

  3. […] responded to the attorney general in a letter, the text of which is posted […]

  4. […] Mrs. Studzman has released a statement through her legal team that is as astonishing as it is courageous. Rather than accept the nominal […]

  5. […] Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do. […]

  6. […] Mrs. Studzman has released a statement through her legal team that is as astonishing as it is courageous. Rather than accept the nominal […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *