Old white florist may lose her business and cash for not serving ? at a wedding

Options
King Ghidorah
King Ghidorah Members Posts: 917 ✭✭✭✭✭
CNN)—If you have not been following the case of Barronelle Stutzman, you should be.

Stutzman is the Washington florist who has been sued for living out her Christian beliefs. In 2013, a long-time friend and customer came to her flower shop and asked her to provide flowers for his ? wedding. Stutzman had known this man and had done business with him for about nine years. Nevertheless, she told him that she could not participate in his wedding "because of my relationship with Jesus."

The man's partner subsequently spread the word via social media. As a result, the attorney general of Washington State sued Stutzman for violating the state's anti-discrimination law. The two men also sued her in their personal capacity and were represented by the ACLU. As a result of these lawsuits, Stutzman stands to lose her business, her home, and her personal savings. Her whole life hangs in the balance with this case.

Yesterday, a Washington State judge issued a summary judgment that went against her. Stutzman's legal team put out this statement explaining what this means:

A state judge ruled Wednesday that Washington floral artist and grandmother Barronelle Stutzman must provide full support for wedding ceremonies that are contrary to her faith.

The court also ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple, who each filed lawsuits against her, may collect damages and attorneys fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally. That means the 70-year-old grandmother may not only lose her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.



"The message of these rulings is unmistakable: The government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don't help celebrate same-sex marriage," said Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued before the court in December.

The decision against Stutzman sets a dreadful precedent against our first freedom in the Bill of Rights: religious liberty. The court says that she is free to believe what she wants, but not to practice her religious beliefs. The court has ruled that if she wants to run a business in the state of Washington, she must defy her conscience and participate in same-sex weddings. If she does not, then the full coercive power of the state -- as well as civil liability -- will be brought against her.

Keep in mind that Stutzman does not refuse service to ? people. Indeed she had been selling flowers to this ? couple for nine years. She has also employed ? people in her flower shop. She had a friendship with the man suing her and cared for him personally and wished for her relationship with him to continue. She simply could not defy her conscience and lend her creative talent to help celebrate what her faith says she cannot celebrate. She had no idea that staying true to her faith would end up threatening her entire livelihood and savings.

We are witnessing a shift in our society -- a shift which inevitably leads to Christians being treated as pariahs at every level of our national life. Louie Giglio's Christian views on marriage got him removed from the President's inauguration. Brendan Eich's support for traditional marriage got him dismissed as CEO of Mozilla. Kelvin Cochran's Christian faith got him fired from his position as fire chief of Atlanta. Two bakers in Oregon had to shutter their business and are now facing bankruptcy for refusing to participate in a ? wedding. The stories are mounting. Who will be next?

This summer, the Supreme Court will rule on ? marriage, and many observers expect the ruling to be a Roe v. Wade-type legal landmark, perhaps declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The Congress may consider again a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity into protected classes. This means that what is happening to Barronelle Stutzman in Washington State could be happening to Christians nationwide in very short order.

Barronelle Stutzman's case is nothing less than an egregious violation of our first freedom. It is Caesar saying, "Conscience be damned. Submit to the new sexual orthodoxy or risk losing everything."

This is not tolerance. This is injustice that flies in the face of this nation's laws and traditions. And if this kind of thing can be done to a 70-year-old grandmother running a small flower shop in rural Washington State, then it can be done to you. No one's conscience is safe if this precedent becomes the norm.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-? /

Fair or foul? I think they should take the rubble too, but w/e.
«134

Comments

  • Shizlansky
    Shizlansky Members Posts: 35,095 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    She old white women.

    ? her.

    I don't trust any old white ppl.
  • A Talented One
    A Talented One Members Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    Options
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.
  • MoneyPowerRespect
    MoneyPowerRespect Members Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    I don't support the judgement, but you are right.
    Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is.
  • MoneyPowerRespect
    MoneyPowerRespect Members Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    zombie wrote: »
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    then how the ? is that equality ? ???? that's you putting your sexual preference over my religious belief and forcing me to do business with you against my conscience

    Because you can't pick and choose who you do business with?
  • A Talented One
    A Talented One Members Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2015
    Options
    zombie wrote: »
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    then how the ? is that equality ? ???? that's you putting your sexual preference over my religious belief and forcing me to do business with you against my conscience

    For equality to exist, it must require equal treatment even by private businesses. It's not that hard. It doesn't matter what your conscience says.

    Religious belief shouldn't excuse anyone from anti-discrimination laws in the case of race, and it shouldn't excuse anyone in the case of sexual orientation.
  • Valentinez A. Kaiser
    Valentinez A. Kaiser Members Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
  • gns
    gns Members Posts: 21,285 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Don't shop owners or businesses have the right to refuse service?!

    If she'd tell em no without providing a reason, couldn't she have been good?

    Anyway wiping an old lady out is some harsh ? . I guess that ain't really a big deal to people who regularly ? each other in the ass.

    Shame they couldn't just respect her beliefs and go somewhere else but being a business owner she gotta understand the rules of the state she's operating in.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    zombie wrote: »
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    then how the ? is that equality ? ???? that's you putting your sexual preference over my religious belief and forcing me to do business with you against my conscience

    For equality to exist, it must require equal treatment even by private businesses. It's not that hard. It doesn't matter what your conscience says.

    Religious belief shouldn't excuse anyone from anti-discrimination laws in the case of race, and it shouldn't excuse anyone in the case of sexual orientation.

    then it's not private business now it is??? if the government can force private entities to do business with people they don't want too then it's not truly private it's government controlled.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    zombie wrote: »
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    then how the ? is that equality ? ???? that's you putting your sexual preference over my religious belief and forcing me to do business with you against my conscience

    Because you can't pick and choose who you do business with?

    NOT IF the government is forcing me to sell to people I don't want to
  • vagrant-718
    vagrant-718 Members Posts: 4,569 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Foul...? couple should've went to a different florist.
  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    How would you know whether or not that shop is ? -friendly, though?

    Why should it matter? ALL people should respect and let be the lifestyles and beliefs of everyone.
  • BoldChild
    BoldChild Members Posts: 11,415 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
  • A Talented One
    A Talented One Members Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2015
    Options
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    then how the ? is that equality ? ???? that's you putting your sexual preference over my religious belief and forcing me to do business with you against my conscience

    For equality to exist, it must require equal treatment even by private businesses. It's not that hard. It doesn't matter what your conscience says.

    Religious belief shouldn't excuse anyone from anti-discrimination laws in the case of race, and it shouldn't excuse anyone in the case of sexual orientation.

    then it's not private business now it is??? if the government can force private entities to do business with people they don't want too then it's not truly private it's government controlled.

    You sound like those white politicians of the 1960s. Because that is one of the things they said against the Civil Rights Act.

    Some of you IC people are so ? confused that going by what you say you would support the repeal of the landmark civil rights acts of the 60s, and I find it very troubling.

    Anyway, there are limits to what you can do with your own business. And that's the way it should be.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2015
    Options
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    then how the ? is that equality ? ???? that's you putting your sexual preference over my religious belief and forcing me to do business with you against my conscience

    For equality to exist, it must require equal treatment even by private businesses. It's not that hard. It doesn't matter what your conscience says.

    Religious belief shouldn't excuse anyone from anti-discrimination laws in the case of race, and it shouldn't excuse anyone in the case of sexual orientation.

    then it's not private business now it is??? if the government can force private entities to do business with people they don't want too then it's not truly private it's government controlled.

    You sound like those white politicians of the 1960s. Because that is one of the things they said against the Civil Rights Act.

    Some of you IC people are so ? confused that going by what you say you would support the repeal of the landmark civil rights acts of the 60s, and I find it very troubling.

    Anyway, there are limits to what you can do with your own business. And that's the way it should be.

    as far as I am concerned, The civil rights act was flawed. the devil despite being evil can also be right. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RUN MY BUSINESS ANY ? WAY I WANT TOO. Freedom should always reign supreme for all people. This liberal ? has to and will come to an end.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    VIBE wrote: »
    How would you know whether or not that shop is ? -friendly, though?

    Why should it matter? ALL people should respect and let be the lifestyles and beliefs of everyone.

    exactly so you should respect this old lady and her decision not to participate in any ? ?
  • dalyricalbandit
    dalyricalbandit Members, Moderators Posts: 67,918 Regulator
    Options
    some other business lucked up
  • So ILL
    So ILL Members Posts: 16,507 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    She'll be alright.
  • SneakDZA
    SneakDZA Members Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    I support this judgment.

    Equality takes precedence over religious belief. That's the bottom line.

    then how the ? is that equality ? ???? that's you putting your sexual preference over my religious belief and forcing me to do business with you against my conscience

    Because you can't pick and choose who you do business with?

    NOT IF the government is forcing me to sell to people I don't want to

    The government isn't forcing her or you to do anything - there are laws and there are decisions. If you choose to make decisions that disregard laws you have to accept the consequences of that.

    Nobody wants to have to be subject to judgement by zealots every time they want to buy something. Just sell them some ? and go on about your day or don't sell ? .

    You spend 50% of your time on here disparaging Muslims yet all of a sudden you want to pretend you're all about religious freedom? Just come clean and say what you you really think which is that you support religious freedom as long as it's being used to reinforce your particular prejudices.

    This is exactly why there are laws against discrimination and a clause in the very first amendment of the constitution declaring a separation of church and state.
  • warren98
    warren98 Members Posts: 472 ✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Wait hold up wouldn't this be a stalemate?

    ? people with a belief and religious person with a belief? Stupid judgement.

    Really the ? couple can go smoke a big fat pole with barbwire on it and stick it where the sun don't shine.

    Hope the old woman pulls through with the business.