Flower Power: Christian Florist Rejects Attorney General’s Offer

a reply to: retiredTxn

I watched same interview, the man actually was given a list of three other florists to use and left her business without challenge.

From the interview it was apparent that the customer did not initiate the lawsuit but rather state AG did after hearing news reports.

If neither private party initiated lawsuit why is AG dragging this to court?

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: borntowatch
Its pretty sad situation that she thinks she is doing the right thing.
I wonder if she had to justify what she is doing from scripture would it wake her up. Probably not.

Its the world we live in, there are many nasty people in every environment, Christians as well.

Feel sorry for her.

she's brain washed. no, i'm not kidding. i'm not saying christian churches, exclusively, brain wash people but, well, all institutions/mass media forms of learning, brain wash people. she's been lead to believe that she must do that in order to show evidence of her faith but it hasn't dawned on her, apparently, that she has never required her customers to prove they were righteous before this event - and that's because she knows it's not her place to do so. so clearly, someone has brain washed her into believing she should do so now.

She has a right to do what she is doing and I am sure she has carefully considered her actions.
I support her but disagree, I would like to see her defend her position from scripture.
Its her choice and her conscience, what gives us the right to demand people conform to our will and desire, I think she is wrong, bless her choice.

I think you may be brainwashed into being negative and righteous about her decision.

originally posted by: Phoenix
If neither private party initiated lawsuit why is AG dragging this to court?

It's a state law. If you get caught speeding, you don't have to have someone sue you to be "in trouble". It's the AG's job to enforce state laws.

I do believe the customer also initiated a lawsuit, though. Yes, here it is:

Ingersol vs Arlene's Florist

Filed in Benton County Superior Court, the lawsuit is seeking a court order barring the florist from discriminating against customers on the basis of sexual orientation and damages for the violation of the couple’s rights.

a reply to: Metallicus

This idea that business owners should be allowed to discriminate against their customers based on their own ideology is ludicrous!

This is a position/stance that Rand Paul has supported in past statements and it's one of the primary reasons that he is un-electable as POTUS. It's also one of the primary reasons that I find him to be detestable.

Furthermore, this is a prime example why government regulations are necessary, which is to protect the public from bigots like this.

If someone wants to conduct business in the public realm, they should do so without discrimination. If they can't see fit to treat "all" of their customers equally, they should not be allowed to conduct business.

I know of a very small town, (very near where I live) that has only one gas station and it's at least 20 miles to the next nearest town. Now, if that business owner was a White supremacist who refused to sell gas to blacks & Jews, should that be allowed?

Better yet, what if the owner is black or Muslim and refuses to sell gas to whites, Jews and/or infidels?

Please!!! Who are we, ISIS?

I don't understand ? How is a male florist not gay ? Every male florist around here is in fact gay and there is no way a male florist hasn't been exposed to gay men in the past. I wonder how he feels about muslims coming in the store ? I think he should be able to ban who he wants, he is just hurting his own business.

originally posted by: jeramie
Sin is the transgression of God's law. That lady would be an awfully bored florist if she refused service to every sinner who came into her business.

Yes, thank you. This is exactly how I feel. I don't believe homosexuality is right or acceptable. No exceptions. I certainly don't support gay marriage. HOWEVER I also don't believe adultery, or murder, or child abuse, or animal abuse, etc etc etc are acceptable either.

If I were a small business owner (which I a not) I would server anyone with a smile and compassion and show them God's love. I don't believe these business owners are doing any good in Jesus name or the Christian name by refusing them service. I understand sticking up for your morals, but providing beautiful flowers at a reasonable price to someone for their own personal use doesn't really fit the bill to me.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: retiredTxn

I watched same interview, the man actually was given a list of three other florists to use and left her business without challenge.

From the interview it was apparent that the customer did not initiate the lawsuit but rather state AG did after hearing news reports.

If neither private party initiated lawsuit why is AG dragging this to court?

I was confused by that part. Two different sources have stated differing views on this, so I'm still looking for a reliable source to clarify this. As far as the AG, in most states I think they can file on behalf of the state, regardless of what either party does. Sounds crazy to me, but hopefully this point can be cleared up. Thank you for pointing that out.

ETA: The AG did file on behalf of the state, citing the state's Consumer Protection Law. This was done on April 09, 2013. Here is a link to the original filing.

FILING (PDF)

Apologies to all for claiming the customer sued. It was the state AG.


Also, here is a good read if anyone would care to look at it. Gives some really good info.

Richland florist, who won’t supply gay wedding, sues the state

a reply to: retiredTxn

Why is it so important she change her business practices and personal beliefs, while he does not have to change his? Maybe understanding this 70 year old woman has her beliefs and he has his, so move on to the next florist. So many unwilling to compromise, but demanding others compromise and do it their way.

What you have to understand is, the reason this law exists. It exists because it keeps one group of people from disenfranchising another group by conspiring not to do business with them. This happened to black people, and it is a perpetual stain in America's history. I am very much pro-religious freedom, but not when it violates the rights of others, or forces one persons beliefs on another, and prevents them from purchasing goods equally.

If this were allowed to continue unabated, we would have whole industries refusing goods and services to whatever group they've decided not to serve. Today it's gays. Tomorrow it will be people who have red hair. There's a fine line here, and sometimes it isn't easy to determine when it is being crossed, and when it isn't.

a reply to: retiredTxn

See this post for clarification: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Just curious, been in many a business that have had prominent signage that says,

"We reserve the right to refuse business for any reason whatsoever"

Is that meaningless and is it right for a customer to in essence tell a business owner how to run their business.

Where and when did the customer join the management team?

I am not anti anything but I don't agree using government "point of a gun" tactics for social issues.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Just curious, been in many a business that have had prominent signage that says,

"We reserve the right to refuse business for any reason whatsoever"

A business owner can refuse an INDIVIDUAL for certain reasons: Being drunk and disorderly, no shoes, very dirty, etc. But they cannot refuse service to a group: women, gay people, Christians, blacks, etc.

Discrimination laws are state laws. So, depending on where you've seen these signs, they could very well be meaningless. For example, they couldn't LEGALLY refuse to serve blacks.

...is it right for a customer to in essence tell a business owner how to run their business.

1. Is it "right"? We're all going to have different opinions on that. Right and wrong have very little to do with legal and illegal.
2. The customer isn't telling the business how to run it. The state is. Business owners have to obey state laws in running their business. They agree to do so.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Just curious, been in many a business that have had prominent signage that says,

"We reserve the right to refuse business for any reason whatsoever"

Go try it with blacks, women, jews, or even (God forbid) christians etc. etc.

But it's ok as long as it's only those second class citizens (gays) right?

Religious freedom in a place of public business ?

Can't wait to see how the American public is going to react when muslims, jews, buddhists, hindus, jehovahs witnesses, etc etc all start enforcing their religious beliefs in their places of business and refusing to serve certain groups of people - particularly all those heathen infidels.

... just imagine if the Westboro folks owned every business in your town and they were allowed to decide whom they're going to sell a loaf of bread to. Or better yet, stipulating on how you're going to use that loaf of bread if they decide to let you buy it - and who is or isn't allowed to eat it.

This woman is doing what she thinks is 'right', and doesn't even realize she's trying to pave a path to the floodgates from hell.

Oh the hilarity of watching radicals tying the knot in their own nooses because they're incapable of seeing the bigger picture...

"May you live in interesting times."

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: retiredTxn

If this were allowed to continue unabated, we would have whole industries refusing goods and services to whatever group they've decided not to serve. Today it's gays. Tomorrow it will be people who have red hair. There's a fine line here, and sometimes it isn't easy to determine when it is being crossed, and when it isn't.

I understand your point, however, this is not a whole industry. Most florists would have no problem doing this. In this instance, an older woman felt compelled to follow her beliefs. Not saying they are right, but she chose her path, and she should be respected for that. The customer is not being refused service at other florists, so move on, which in this case he did.

The state AG chose to take on this battle. Ultimately, this may cost the woman her business, her home, and everything she has worked hard for her whole life. All this to prove what point? We can and will use everything within our power to make you submit, or we will crush you. We still have people in this country who were raised in a different time, and have different beliefs.

There are so many folks who are scared of being thought of as un-PC, they just go with the flow and refuse to state or stand up for what they really think. This lady did stand up for what she believes, and IMO, the state AG just saw a chance to garner some attention and votes.

originally posted by: retiredTxn
The state AG chose to take on this battle.

Would you say the same if he decided to pursue people breaking other state laws? What is he supposed to do? Just sit back and let people break all the state laws they feel like breaking?

originally posted by: retiredTxn
Ultimately, this may cost the woman her business, her home, and everything she has worked hard for her whole life.

Her choice.

All this to prove what point?

That some Christians don't approve of gay marriage. We already know that. No need for her to prove that point.

This lady did stand up for what she believes

She is free to stand up for her beliefs. But she cannot use her business to break the law.

I think I'm going to purchase a bunch of Walmart franchises and give myself a job as a cashier.

And when someone comes through my till with a spatula, I'm going to ask them what they plan on using it for. And then I'm going to tell them:

"Nope, so very very sorry dear, but I'm not going to let you buy this spatula because chocolate cake is against my religion. It's nothing personal sweetie and I consider you to be a wonderful human being... but if I sell you this spatula to make chocolate cake, I would be committing a great sin against my lord and saviour and won't get my 72 virgins. Allah be with you and have a nice day !"

a reply to: EvillerBob

well the only reason people haven't had to confront this before was because it wasn't the law of the land. it is new testament centered to follow the lands of the land where you live, provided they don't require you to disobey jesus, which is obviously a personal thing. technically, she's overstepping her biblical bounds when she refuses to sell to a person based on the fact they are living an unbiblical lifestyle. she has to make up her mind to forgive those who she feels are an offense to god, and let god handle it. first person who tried to help god solve his problems (under the new covenant), was judas iscariot

I just saw this in the OP source...

Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal.

What is it she loves to do? Discriminate? She doesn't understand that she is perfectly free to do what she loves to do! Selling flowers isn't illegal. Unless what she loves to do is judge and punish people for being gay... Her thinking is all screwed up on this, IMO. She sells flowers to sinners EVERY DAY! How does that square with her religious beliefs?

I do have compassion for the woman. She apparently firmly believes that she will be sinning if she sells flowers for gay weddings... And for that, she has my sympathies. But unless she wants to stop serving weddings altogether, she is breaking the law of the land.

And "selling flowers to sinners" is not something I remember from my years of bible study as a sin. In fact, Jesus hung out with sinners. He dined with sinners, he ministered to them... He didn't turn them away because they were sinners...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And "selling flowers to sinners" is not something I remember from my years of bible study as a sin.

precisely.

a reply to: Klassified

yep, we do not need businesses selectively refusing service to people based on things like politics, religion, race, gender or financial status. i can see it being an issue if it goes against health laws, like no shirt, no shoes, no service, or safety laws. but could you imagine if they started basing it on whether or not you were the right political party or if you voted correctly in the last election? people need to use their common sense.

p.s. yes i'm aware hollywood frequently refuses to hire conservatives, but two wrongs don't make a right.