Flower Power: Christian Florist Rejects Attorney General’s Offer

originally posted by: Gryphon66



There's probably more scriptural basis for: "Jesus doesn't want me to pay taxes, so I'm not gonna" given how one interprets the bit about "rendering to Caesar."

None at all for opposing marriage equality.

The render to Caesar is not about paying taxes, you have misunderstood the teaching and transposed it to what you think.
"Whos image is on the coin?" Caesars image, its Caesars coin. We were created in Gods image, we are Gods creation, we are to worship God, the coins are Caesar's.
Its not about money and tax, its a spiritual statement.

Are you preaching Christianity?

I think she is wrong, I think she is acting like a Wesboro baptist church member, I think its sad.

You live in a secular society with secular laws, let the government sort it out fairly.

I dont see this being about marriage equality, its about compassion and care in a community.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Elton

originally posted by: Domo1
That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

Or imagine if nobody in town would sell you or your family gasoline or food.

I think it makes people uncomfortable when I parallel discrimination of the disabled. We (mom & 3 kids under age 7) were refused service and asked to leave places just because of the disability.

You'd be surprised how many people "believe" they can catch a disability by being in the same room. Can't let one family ruin it for everyone else having dinner in a restaurant.

Not so easy, when you can't walk, to go find an establishment that will accept you.

You were asked to leave simply because someone in your family was disabled or because of the behavior caused by the disability?

originally posted by: Gryphon66


(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:

(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;

The question of same was asked in court and was answered:

On February 18, a Benton County Superior Court judge ruled that florist Barronelle Stutzman had illegally violated the state's Consumer Protection Act when she refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple's wedding ceremony. Though Stutzman claimed her actions were religiously motivated, the judge made clear that religious belief did not create a blank check to violate the state's non-discrimination law, writing:

For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.

Following the ruling, Washington's attorney general offered Stutzman a settlement - stop discriminating, pay the law's $2000 penalty, and pay $1 to cover the cost of the case - but Stuztman refused the deal.

I have to hand it to ya Gryph. What you laid out right here is IMO everything needed to shut down any and all opposition to this argument. The wording of that judge and the detailed way in which that was all said is exactly what I think myself and others have been trying to explain whether it be florists or bakers or whoever. I think too many people think it's about changing someone's beliefs or imposing a system of belief when it's not about that. It's about commerce and how to conduct oneself in business with the public and the reasoning behind it.

Anyway, I just had to say "nice one" and "good job".

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Elton

originally posted by: Domo1
That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

Or imagine if nobody in town would sell you or your family gasoline or food.

I think it makes people uncomfortable when I parallel discrimination of the disabled. We (mom & 3 kids under age 7) were refused service and asked to leave places just because of the disability.

You'd be surprised how many people "believe" they can catch a disability by being in the same room. Can't let one family ruin it for everyone else having dinner in a restaurant.

Not so easy, when you can't walk, to go find an establishment that will accept you.

You were asked to leave simply because someone in your family was disabled or because of the behavior caused by the disability?

Just because my mom was disabled. No other reason.

She had one full length leg brace and 2 Kenny Sticks (that's the kind of crutches that fit under the arm. Named after Sister Kenny. "Sister" is Military rank - not religious).

She was flat out told it would make paying customers uncomfortable (that's just one incident, there were others).

Just like the florist, lots of "sincere" apologies, but they had to protect their "other" customers from feeling uncomfortable.

a reply to: borntowatch

Thank you for your personal interpretation.

I personally think that opinions have their place.

Notice, however, the comparison in the first line you quoted "there's probably more basis" which indicates that while denial of equality under the law certainly has no basis in the Bible, that particular passage could be construed to regard taxes, since the part you neglected to include in your helpful quote was:

They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? (Mark 12:14)

Now, I know that many Christians argue that I have to have the Secret Decoder Ring and the Special Glasses to understand the Bible, but I submit that the context here is clear, at least inasfaras my statement suggested that something was more than nothing.

Thanks for your honeyed dollops though! Much appreciated!

a reply to: mOjOm

Ah, you have great faith!

You know as well as I do that facts and logic have little bearing on belief.

Thanks though for your kindness!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Elton

originally posted by: Domo1
That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

Or imagine if nobody in town would sell you or your family gasoline or food.

I think it makes people uncomfortable when I parallel discrimination of the disabled. We (mom & 3 kids under age 7) were refused service and asked to leave places just because of the disability.

You'd be surprised how many people "believe" they can catch a disability by being in the same room. Can't let one family ruin it for everyone else having dinner in a restaurant.

Not so easy, when you can't walk, to go find an establishment that will accept you.

You were asked to leave simply because someone in your family was disabled or because of the behavior caused by the disability?

Just because my mom was disabled. No other reason.

She had one full length leg brace and 2 Kenny Sticks (that's the kind of crutches that fit under the arm. Named after Sister Kenny. "Sister" is Military rank - not religious).

She was flat out told it would make paying customers uncomfortable (that's just one incident, there were others).

Just like the florist, lots of "sincere" apologies, but they had to protect their "other" customers from feeling uncomfortable.

I hope you went directly to a lawyer.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Elton

originally posted by: Domo1
That seems completely fair. I would sure be pissed off if someone refused to do flowers for my wedding because I have tattoos.

Or imagine if nobody in town would sell you or your family gasoline or food.

I think it makes people uncomfortable when I parallel discrimination of the disabled. We (mom & 3 kids under age 7) were refused service and asked to leave places just because of the disability.

You'd be surprised how many people "believe" they can catch a disability by being in the same room. Can't let one family ruin it for everyone else having dinner in a restaurant.

Not so easy, when you can't walk, to go find an establishment that will accept you.

You were asked to leave simply because someone in your family was disabled or because of the behavior caused by the disability?

Just because my mom was disabled. No other reason.

She had one full length leg brace and 2 Kenny Sticks (that's the kind of crutches that fit under the arm. Named after Sister Kenny. "Sister" is Military rank - not religious).

She was flat out told it would make paying customers uncomfortable (that's just one incident, there were others).

Just like the florist, lots of "sincere" apologies, but they had to protect their "other" customers from feeling uncomfortable.

I hope you went directly to a lawyer.

Prior to the disability act.

originally posted by: borntowatch

I think she is wrong, I think she is acting like a Wesboro baptist church member, I think its sad.

You could have used many other analogies, and you chose Westboro Baptist Church? Really?

Whether this woman is ultimately found right or wrong, she has displayed none of the hatefulness,
anger, or pure evil that the very few members of Westboro have displayed in their protests. To
suggest such, is just ridiculous.

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: borntowatch

I think she is wrong, I think she is acting like a Wesboro baptist church member, I think its sad.

You could have used many other analogies, and you chose Westboro Baptist Church? Really?

Whether this woman is ultimately found right or wrong, she has displayed none of the hatefulness,
anger, or pure evil that the very few members of Westboro have displayed in their protests. To
suggest such, is just ridiculous.

Blatant discrimination isn't hateful? Hmm.

originally posted by: Tangerine

Blatant discrimination isn't hateful? Hmm.

I have seen nothing to suggest that she blatantly discriminated against this couple. Had she placed a sign up that said "We don't serve Fags", that would fit your opinion. She didn't. She spoke to the man, explained her beliefs, sat down and talked a while, then wrote out some referrals to other florists that she felt would not have a problem doing the flowers for his wedding.

Her intent was not intended to be hateful. The judge who heard the case, ruled against her religious beliefs, and in favor of the Consumer Protection Act and other anti-discrimination laws in Washington state. Of course, there will be an appeal, and no telling how long those will take.

Ultimately a final decision will be handed down when she has exhausted her appeals. Whether she is found right or wrong, she will have stood up for something she feels strongly about. That is still legal in America. What is hateful, IMO, is some here wish to deny her that right, and elevate one persons rights above anothers rights. That will be decided by the judicial system, not here on ATS.

Is there a law in Washington state that forbids discriminating against citizens based on their sexual orientation?

Did the florist discriminate against a citizen based on his sexual orientation?

Should those who break the law suffer the consequences of the law?

Those are the only relevant questions.

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Tangerine

Blatant discrimination isn't hateful? Hmm.

I have seen nothing to suggest that she blatantly discriminated against this couple. Had she placed a sign up that said "We don't serve Fags", that would fit your opinion. She didn't. She spoke to the man, explained her beliefs, sat down and talked a while, then wrote out some referrals to other florists that she felt would not have a problem doing the flowers for his wedding.

Her intent was not intended to be hateful. The judge who heard the case, ruled against her religious beliefs, and in favor of the Consumer Protection Act and other anti-discrimination laws in Washington state. Of course, there will be an appeal, and no telling how long those will take.

Ultimately a final decision will be handed down when she has exhausted her appeals. Whether she is found right or wrong, she will have stood up for something she feels strongly about. That is still legal in America. What is hateful, IMO, is some here wish to deny her that right, and elevate one persons rights above anothers rights. That will be decided by the judicial system, not here on ATS.

Her intentions and politeness (if it can be described as that) were irrelevant. She refused to sell to a member of the public in violation of the law. Of course, she can practice civil disobedience but that will not and should not protect her from the penalties for breaking the law.

You seem to disregard the fact that she entered into a contract to abide by the law when she opened her business to the public.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not deny that. All I'm trying to say is she should have the right to protest that law, put forth her beliefs that this law violates her constitutional rights, and utilize the appeals process to plea her point. I have said that ultimately she will exhaust her appeals, and a final decision will be made.

A decision has been made by a judge in Washington state. Is that the only shot she should get?

No one has said here she doesn't have a right to protest.

No one has said here she doesn't have the right to seek what she considers redress for wrongs in the Washington and Federal court systems.

She is an American citizen; she certainly has those rights.

The man against whom she discriminated unfairly also has rights, and has utilized the same process of finding justice.

One is no better than the other; neither have more or better or special rights than the other.

Hey, Txn. Regarding your discussion with Tangerine, as I see it, there are two angles to this case. One is the emotional, sympathetic angle and the other is the legal angle. I have a few words about each.

originally posted by: retiredTxn
Her intent was not intended to be hateful.

Here I agree with you 100%. This was her friend, who she knew was gay. She didn't hate him and I do believe it was hard for her to discriminate against him. So, there's that angle. Which cannot and should not be considered in the legal case. She did willfully discriminate and was aware of what she was doing. But I don't see a trace of hatred for her friend.

The judge who heard the case, ruled against her religious beliefs,

Here, I disagree 100%. The judge made NO ruling against her BELIEF. He ruled against her ACTION. From Gryphon's previous post (and quoted in mOjOm's post above):

For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief.

Regardless the eventual outcome of this case, her religious belief will be intact. Her actions may change. It's a very important distinction to be made. And of course, the judge ruled in favor of the law. To make an extreme analogy, if I believe that someone should die, the law cannot rule against my belief. If I kill them however, the law is clear that my actions are illegal and I should suffer the consequences of those actions.

Whether she is found right or wrong, she will have stood up for something she feels strongly about.

Again, I agree. She is well within her rights to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. And I support her right to do so, even though I abhor her beliefs AND actions.

elevate one persons rights above anothers rights.

The problem with this statement is that she doesn't have the legal right to do what she did, so it's not "her rights against his". It's her violating his rights, as a consumer and a citizen of the state, to take part in any public accommodation offered to the citizens of the state. As a business owner, she does not have the legal right to deny him what she offers to other citizens. She DOES have the right to believe what she believes, and that is not being challenged.

As in my previous analogy, I have the right to think someone should be dead, but I don't have the legal right to ACT on that belief.

It's ironic that for many years, people have been accusing gay people of demanding "special rights"... In this case, for a religious person to claim a right to ACT on their religious beliefs (by violating an actual right of someone else), would, in fact, be a "special right", because none of the rest of us have that right.

Great discussion!

Christianity is not the only religion that is protected under the Constitution and state laws.

Arguing that this lady should be able to run her business as her religious beliefs demand in opposition to the laws of her State is EXACTLY the same as arguing that a Muslim should be able to run their business by Sharia law.

Contemplate that honestly for a moment, and I think you will see the ultimate point that some of us are trying desperately to get across to you.

originally posted by: Tangerine

Her intentions and politeness (if it can be described as that) were irrelevant. She refused to sell to a member of the public in violation of the law. Of course, she can practice civil disobedience but that will not and should not protect her from the penalties for breaking the law.

You seem to disregard the fact that she entered into a contract to abide by the law when she opened her business to the public.

Please show me something that shows she was anything but polite.
What penalties for breaking the law has she been protected from?

No, I am not disregarding the contract she has entered into, rather her right to challenge a law that forces her to do something that she feels violates her religious beliefs.

Me personally, I have never, nor will I ever, discriminate against anyone knowingly. Everyone has the right to protest to the fullest extent when charged with a crime. That is what I support.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with your points. I'm not trying to be argumentative or a b^^thead. I just feel very strongly both sides should be heard. And until all appeals are done with, none of us will know the final outcome.

The RFRA is not applicable in this case, and Washington state has not passed a state RFRA. I'm not sure if Washington had one, it would apply in this case. Regardless, I see a future filled with challenges on these matters, probably a never ending battle.

I went to The Kelly File Facebook page and watched the video of her interview. There were over 6000 comments on this one issue. Of course, the usual lunatics are there, but I found many comments from people who claim to be gay, supporting her position. That was quite surprising. If anyone's interested, I've put a link below.

The Kelley File

a reply to: retiredTxn

My comment was a general one.

I look forward to the day when we all evolve beyond these kinds of issues.