Judge Rules Against Christian Florist Who Refused to Provide Flowers for Gay Wedding

Harms no one you say?

Once again, if you allow this, it means everyone can just say, I'm christian and don't serve gays (which is bs by the way), and thus gays can't buy anything anywhere. I think that would hurt them quite a bit. The reason these laws exist is to prevent that kind of horse crap.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Jamie1

Actually a religion has to be recognized by the state, there is a process by which a religion becomes official, you actually cannot make up a religion on the spot. If your religion is not officially recognized, the laws that protect freedom of religion do not apply to them.

You're wrong.

The laws that applies to freedom to express religion is The Constitution. The Constitution's laws are directed at the government, not the individual.

What you described is 100% opposite of the 1st Amendment. The government is forbidden by the Constitution of establishing "approved" religions.

Just curious where you were taught this? Public school? The DailyKos?

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Jews have been discriminated against for centuries. CENTURIES!!!
Have you never read about WW2? Being refused business was the least of their problems.
Only yesterday I heard a jewish bloke describing being spat at and told to eff off, just for wearing his skullcap.

Okay, so Jews beings refused service in Nazi germany is a very good point, but let me add to it. Jews were made a scapegoat in germany in order to bring support for hitler's socialist party. This was done so that the jew's, who owned the majority of business and thus, held a lot of wealth within germany, could have all of their property and possessions confiscated by the state without other's protesting such a disgusting act. Those that flee'd germany were not discriminated against in their new countries, for example the UK. Jew's are still not discriminated against here. And my point remains, i have never read a news story of someone being refused service because of their religion.

As for your last point, its not hardcore christians, its hardcore control freaks. Psychopaths who use the ignorance of others for their own gain. It was here before religion, and it will be here long after. The same type of people that use God to persuade people to commit suicide or murder, or illegal wars on sovereign countries.

In the specific case of Uganda, it is hardcore christian fundie's who have polluted those people with their hate for homosexuals. They fund politicians to pass such disgusting law's because they think they're going to make some sort of utopia in an african country. Im not going to discriminate though, its well known that muslims are also making a play a control the hearts and minds of those living on the african continent, they're doing just as much damage with their hate speech and religious texts.

Yes the Jews were discriminated against, they have always been discriminated against. Im not even Jewish but I know this to be true. When the Jews arrived here in London they had to fight Oswald Moselys gang of fascists in the streets of the East End. Because of the acts of zionist ideologists, Jews are still discriminated against today. Thanks to the Rothschild Satanic global empire, Jews get a lot of flak.

When we first went into Africa we stole the gold, stole the people as slaves and pretty much kept Africas lights off ever since. And who exactly are the "hardcore christian fundies"? I bet they reside in the West. I would guarantee it. The racist psychopaths that dominate global politics have kept Africa in a state of poverty and corruption for geopolitics and western wealth. Thats just a fact. Western intelligence agencies have been organizing coups and revolutions in Africa since we first set foot there.

a reply to: Jamie1

So I can start walking around naked now then, it hurts no one after all, and I can just, against my religion not to, oh and having sex in public places too.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Harms no one you say?

Once again, if you allow this, it means everyone can just say, I'm christian and don't serve gays (which is bs by the way), and thus gays can't buy anything anywhere. I think that would hurt them quite a bit. The reason these laws exist is to prevent that kind of horse crap.

It's already allowed by the Constitution. The state laws are intended to prevent it.

You realize state laws ultimately mean sending people with guns to force people in violation of the law to hand over money or put them in a cage, right?

You're cool with that? Because an old lady didn't sell flowers to 2 guys for their wedding, it's cool to send government agents with guns to her house to take her money and/or put her in a cage?

Were the 2 guys actually harmed? Even, God forbid, the 2 gay guys didn't get the pansies they wanted for their wedding from another florist, you think it's cool to send government agents with guns to force the lady to hand over money or put her in a cage?

originally posted by: Puppylove
Harms no one you say?

Once again, if you allow this, it means everyone can just say, I'm christian and don't serve gays (which is bs by the way), and thus gays can't buy anything anywhere. I think that would hurt them quite a bit. The reason these laws exist is to prevent that kind of horse crap.

Its bull# in your opinion, and your opinion is anti freedom. But you are free to hold and express it.
The reason laws exist is to control YOU. Many laws are just, but some are simply unjust.
The "law" justifies the execution of Ugandas gay population.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Jamie1

So I can start walking around naked now then, it hurts no one after all, and I can just, against my religion not to, oh and having sex in public places too.

You might want to do some of your own research on this instead of asking other members of ATS to do it for you.

After you do your research, maybe come back and let us know what you've discovered. There are hundreds of Supreme Court cases that have already decided these matters.

And none of those decisions concluded that gays have a right to be sold products or services by those claiming doing so would be against their religious beliefs.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Jamie1

So I can start walking around naked now then, it hurts no one after all, and I can just, against my religion not to, oh and having sex in public places too.

You should be able to, but its against public decency laws. And yes there are people that actively seek their right to walk around as god intended. There is a guy in prison right now for going on nude walks, he believes in his right to do so. And is a little bit of a local hero where he lives.

a reply to: Metallicus

So many knee jerk reactions here I wonder how many people actually read the article.

First of all. The florist did not refuse to provide service on the drop of a hat. In fact the customer that was "denied" service is a repeat customer who has never had an order refused before this. What happened was this: The florist discovered that this particular order was ordered for the same-sex marriage ceremony of this repeat customer. The florist politely apologized and said she could not fulfill this particular order for the repeat customer, citing religious beliefs. It was not a spontaneous knee-jerk reaction on her part. This country is so weird. She could have easily refused no questions asked if the customer had no shirt & shoes. Yet politely refusing due to of a personal religious conflict and the wolves come out to feast.

That's right. It is the couple that is in the wrong here. Why? Their militant homosexual attitude that other people must do what they demand. That other people must suspend how they feel because a gay couple is asking and they feel entitled to demand service. They have no care at all that what they are asking is putting the florist in distress. The man Ingersoll has done business with this florist multiple times. Why is it so hard for this couple to respect the wishes of this woman?

Entitlement. That's why. "This florist does not approve of my choice of husband(wife) so I am going to unleash the legal arm of the government on her. So what that I've shopped here before. So what that she politely refused to take my order. By God! I am right and I am going to show her!!!!!!"

That's the vibe I get from this couple judging by their actions. This woman didn't lie to or deceive this couple. She was honest with them. She respected their beliefs and choice of lifestyle. She told them straight up that in this case she would be unable provide service for them.

I am not surprised at all that this couple is unable to respect her beliefs and choice of lifestyle.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Jamie1

So I can start walking around naked now then, it hurts no one after all, and I can just, against my religion not to, oh and having sex in public places too.

You should be able to, but its against public decency laws. And yes there are people that actively seek their right to walk around as god intended. There is a guy in prison right now for going on nude walks, he believes in his right to do so. And is a little bit of a local hero where he lives.

Actually I agree nudity should be allowed, along with swearing, ect, but was not the point.

Oh and sure you're right, it's not currently in the constitution, but how may I ask do you think such laws GOT there if not by fighting for it? The courts ruling is one step closer to a much needed ratification.

originally posted by: My_Reality
What happened was this: The florist discovered that this particular order was ordered for the same-sex marriage ceremony of this repeat customer. The florist politely apologized and said she could not fulfill this particular order for the repeat customer, citing religious beliefs. So in actual reality it was the florists decision to refuse this particular order.

Yep... and that is wrong and that is why a judge ruled against them and rightly so.
Just like the cake-maker, the B&B owner and ANYONE else who knowingly discriminates against people based on race, sexuality etc etc.

If people don't like it... then don't run a business, it's very simple.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
The florist thinks the law's requirement violates her Constitutional right to the free expression of her religion.

Then let her sue the state.

The State of Washington is suing her. The end game is the State of Washington will send government agents with guns to take her money, and/or put her in jail, because she didn't sell flowers to two guys for their wedding.

She has hired legal counsel to defend against the State of Washington.

Stutzman counter-sued the state. That case now is in federal court.

I think this is the one with a March court date, but I'm not sure.

There is so much opinion on this, having trouble finding facts.

Here is where it says the trial starts in March. This is after the Jan 7 ruling that both her and her business can be sued. I'm assuming (not positive) this is her counter suit. So, it's not over yet.

ADF filed a countersuit against the attorney general on Stutzman’s behalf, asserting he violated the state constitution by denying her religious freedom. ADF also asked a judge to dismiss the claims against Stutzman in her personal capacity and to dismiss the case brought by the state. On Jan. 7, the court ruled against the request to dismiss claims against Stutzman in her personal capacity, leaving her personal assets in jeopardy. The trial is set for March.

www.worldmag.com...

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Jamie1

So I can start walking around naked now then, it hurts no one after all, and I can just, against my religion not to, oh and having sex in public places too.

You should be able to, but its against public decency laws. And yes there are people that actively seek their right to walk around as god intended. There is a guy in prison right now for going on nude walks, he believes in his right to do so. And is a little bit of a local hero where he lives.

Actually I agree nudity should be allowed, along with swearing, ect, but was not the point.

Oh and sure you're right, it's not currently in the constitution, but how may I ask do you think such laws GOT there if not by fighting for it? The courts ruling is one step closer to a much needed ratification.

There was no fight for the Patriot Act, its was prepared ready for 911, then rolled out afterwards in a kneejerk reaction and wasnt even read by those that voted it into law. They didnt even get a chance to read it.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Of course that's what it means. You can make up religious beliefs on the spot.

Not true. I could make up a religious belief that it's OK to steal things. That wouldn't be upheld in court as a religious belief.

Religious belief is "not merely a matter of personal preference, but one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living." United States EEOC v. IBP, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 147, 150 (C.D. Ill. 1993)

Legal Definition of Religious Belief

originally posted by: Jamie1
The State of Washington is suing her. The end game is the State of Washington will send government agents with guns to take her money, and/or put her in jail, because she didn't sell flowers to two guys for their wedding.

She has hired legal counsel to defend against the State of Washington.

I KNOW THAT!

But if she thinks the state law infringes on her right to the free exercise of her religion, she can sue the state. She wouldn't get anywhere, because "selling flowers to gay people" isn't against her religion (she's done it before). She's objecting to what the flowers are FOR and that's none of her business.

originally posted by: Jamie1
You can claim it, but that claim would be in conflict with the Civil Rights Act which expressly prohibits discrimination against people based on race or skin color.

And refusing to sell to this couple is in conflict with Washington State law. What's the difference? The Civil Rights Act is just a law.

originally posted by: My_Reality

I am not surprised at all that this couple is unable to respect her beliefs and choice of lifestyle.

I've been following this since day one.

It has nothing to do with respecting her beliefs.

It's about a state anti-discrimnation law she refuses to abide by.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
The State of Washington is suing her. The end game is the State of Washington will send government agents with guns to take her money, and/or put her in jail, because she didn't sell flowers to two guys for their wedding.

She has hired legal counsel to defend against the State of Washington.

I KNOW THAT!

But if she thinks the state law infringes on her right to the free exercise of her religion, she can sue the state. She wouldn't get anywhere, because "selling flowers to gay people" isn't against her religion (she's done it before). She's objecting to what the flowers are FOR and that's none of her business.

So far, religious belief has not won any of these anti-discrimination lawsuits in court.

I don't expect her to either.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Heh. I thought of "Death by Snu Snu!"

a reply to: blupblup

Nonsense. These kinds of cases are an insult to anyone who has suffered under true, harsh discrimination. This matter is nothing more than a minor business dispute. In a city of 50,000 they can go to another florist. The florist herself is not being cruel to them. She politely refused because of her convictions. It's the couple that unnecessarily made this a media spectacle. I know that the parties involved could have reached an amiable agreement. For instance 75% off their next 5 purchases. Something like that. They didn't have to involve the heavy hand of the law.

They chose to do so because they know that they have fixed legal dice. They are making this woman suffer because they can. They are using laws intended to protect people from serious, hateful discrimination and their ammunition is....flowers. That is what burns me.

Care to respond to those points I brought up in my first post and here? Or do you think its right to crush this woman?