70-year-old florist in middle of gay rights storm: 'I'm a little grain of sand'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • sshoaf indianapolis, IN
    April 17, 2015 11:12 a.m.

    This lady should be able to live her religion by not condoning gay marriage. The services are available elsewhere and they got their flowers. The gay agenda isn't really about discrimination. They've never really been discriminated against and they know it. The gay agenda is really about bringing down people of faith and keeping the attention of the media on them. They gay community needs to look back at history to see what real discrimination looks like. Not getting your flowers from this florist when you can easily go down the street and get them from another florist is not discrimination.

  • UtahTroutStalker draper, UT
    April 16, 2015 4:49 p.m.

    I wonder if she will provide flowers to couples who were divorced and are not remarrying while their ex-spouse is still living? That's not something good Christians should participate in either.

    Bottom line - if you sell good and services in the public square you may not discriminate. There are people out that ther are not of your same beliefs, and they pay taxes too - that build the infra-structure (roads, police, water, fire department, courts, etc..) that make it possible for you to do business in the public square.

  • UtahTroutStalker draper, UT
    April 16, 2015 4:44 p.m.

    Once there were a group a people that settled out west. They did not want to sell or service another group traveling through. So they dressed up like native americans and murdered all the men and women in the wagon train.

    After reading the comments on this board I am left to wonder if much has changed in the western state where that all happened.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 14, 2015 7:46 p.m.

    what are we to make of "hate mail" being sent by gays to this 70 year old grandma? Maybe I didn't hear the gay message quite right about tolerance and understanding?? Hmmm - or perhaps the table has always been slanted to the left with gays and they expect tolerance but offer none? Ya that sounds about right.

  • Marsha N. SANDY, UT
    April 14, 2015 8:56 a.m.

    There are hundreds of florist shops available in any city in the US. For crying out loud, let that gay couple to to any other one of them. This lady doesn't have a corner on the market and their rights have not been abused for WANT OF A DAISY!

  • OneHumanFamily Provo, UT
    April 14, 2015 8:46 a.m.

    I wonder how many people would be racing to defend this woman if she refused to make a cake for a Mormon wedding, or a Jewish wedding, or an interracial marriage, etc.

    Would she still be seen as a poor, sweet, picked-on grandma, or would she be seen as a bitter old lady that has refused to let go of old prejudices?

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    April 13, 2015 6:52 p.m.

    RanchHand

    Not one of the scenarios I asked about had religious beliefs as backdrop. All were about conscience. And yes, you could easily call it "personal dislike and bigotry" in each instance.

    So where do you stand? Would you apply the rule uniformly and force people in each of those examples to violate their conscience? Or does this tenet only apply to causes with which you are aligned?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 13, 2015 6:16 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil;

    How, exactly was the couple of friends to know that she wouldn't serve them until they asked? That's a problem for us; until these businesses post signs indicating they won't serve our wedding needs, how are we to know in advance?

    @Harrison Bergeron;

    Until they stop serving all other people who violate their "religious beliefs", then it isn't about "religious beliefs". It's all about personal dislike and bigotry.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    April 13, 2015 3:27 p.m.

    Hmm. Requiring someone to do something that violates their conscience can be a slippery slope.

    I wonder if liberals think a photographer should be required against her will to photograph a KKK rally? What if she happened to be African American?

    Should a web developer be obligated to make a website for NAMBLA? What if her son was a victim of abuse?

    Would they compel a PETA run pet adoption agency (or any pet store for that matter) to sell dogs to people who view them as a culinary delicacy?

    Would they force a Jewish embroidery shop to put swastikas on ball caps for neo-Nazis? Even if the owners were Holocaust survivors?

    And should a pharmacy who's owners oppose capital punishment be forced to sell sodium thiopental to a prison for use in lethal injections?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 13, 2015 12:03 p.m.

    @Mayfair 10:42 a.m. April 13, 2015

    And, acording to your reasoning, Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus, the people in Greensboro should have gone to another lunch counter, people of color should have used "black" water fountains and Richard and Virginia Loving should never have dared to get married. Please tell me why the victims of discrimination and bigotry are the ones who should be required to accomodate their malefactors.

    Ingersoll and Freed were very wrongly treated by someone they thought was a friend and who had fostered their relationship for years with her craft. And then she figuratively stabbed them in the back. They had every right to make a formal complaint under the law, but they didn't. They just shared with their friends the reprehensible treatment they had received at the hand of a supposed friend. Others, outraged on their behalf, let Wasington authorities know what she had done.

    The florist agreed to obey the laws when she obtained her business license. One of those laws prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. She deliberately, with malice aforethought, broke the law. She is rightly paying for her actions.

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    April 13, 2015 11:48 a.m.

    @ Impartial7 - DRAPER, UT - "This woman is wrapping up discrimination in her flag of religion. Now, before D-News commenters jump to her rescue, just remember; Southern Baptists don't believe Mormon are real Christians. How would they like to be denied services at businesses because they are Mormon?"

    Discrimination unfortunately happens against Mormons all the time. People don't like us and treat us accordingly every day. I tell you what a faithful Mormon would do; they'd simply go find another florist. It really isn't all that hard, now is it?

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    April 13, 2015 11:43 a.m.

    @ Baccus0902 - Leesburg, VA "I have no doubt in my mind that Ms. Stutzman is a good woman who is trying to follow her beliefs as she has been taught or as she perceives them. However, discrimination based on religion or any other reason is still discrimination, therefore, illegal.

    I am terribly sorry for her legal fees. She should send those bills to the pastor of her church for him to pay them. After all, his misguided teachings put her in this predicament."

    -----

    "I am terribly sorry for her legal fees. She should send those bills to God for him to pay them. After all, his wise teachings put her in this predicament."

    Hey, Baccus0902, you have your opinion (stated above the dashed line), and I have mine (stated immediately below the dashed line).

    The amazing thing about truth is, it is not decided by a vote. Ever. Interesting, isn't it?

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    April 13, 2015 10:42 a.m.

    When the gay couple learned that their 'marriage' was not something she felt comfortable being a part of, they sould have moved on with their life (just like Mormons do who run into people who do not want to be involved with them.)

    Should have got another florist who was wildly happy about their SSM and wildly happy to be asked do the flowers for it.

    Instead, like truculent spoiled little children, they started whining on Facebook etc and they and other LGBT activist supporters decided to see that suit was brought against her for DARING to want to follow HER own convictions instead of caving in and following THEIR convictions.

    Really, the nerve of this woman! To dare think her own values and belief system and desires should be what she followed instead of giving all that up to follow THEIRS...

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2015 10:05 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    One of the differences in the two Colorado cases was that one was willing to bake the cake (just not write the message on it) and the other refused to bake a cake at all.

    "I think of her as being a human rights' hero, like Rosa Parks"

    No, she's the one driving the bus.

    @RBB
    "but no will be prosecuted if they refuse to buy flowers from her because of her religious beliefs"

    Because there are no laws mandating people buy flowers from every florist or eat at every restaurant.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2015 9:51 a.m.

    I keep seeing the idea that this is discriminating against an "event" and not "people". Okay, by that argument can a baker refuse to make an anniversary cake for an interracial couple because anniversaries are events? Are they not racist? Can a baker refuse to make a Bar Mitzvah cake for someone because Bar Mitzvahs are events? Are they not anti-Semitic? Can a restaurant refuse to serve two gay guys and their adopted kids dinner (they're against gay adoption) because family dinner is an event? Where's the line? Does this justification only work for types of discrimination that you want to be socially acceptable and not the others?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 13, 2015 9:45 a.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil 5:43 a.m. April 13, 2015

    "On the other hand, it is amazing that this couple who considered themselves "friends" of this lady would knowingly put her in this position as well. If they cared about her in the least, they would not made the request."

    The facts in this case suggest something very different. The florist had been doing business with this gay couple for years. She knew they were a gay couple. She provided, arranged and designed floral arrangements for them for years, knowing that the arrangements would be part of the furthering and promoting of their relationships. She made love tokens for them for years. She actively sought to be their "presonal florist", meaning she wanted exclusive rights to their floral business. They had no reason to even think for a moment that she would reject one more floral order from them -- the order for flowers at their wedding. She blind-sided them when she rejected that order, given the relationship she tried to foster with them over the years as their "personal florist". They didn't "knowingly" put her in any type of position. She did it to herself.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 13, 2015 8:17 a.m.

    @ UtahBlueDevil

    "The gay couple is just as rude for asking this lady to do something they knew she didn't not believe in."

    Did they know her position before asking? I'm not fully up to speed on this particular story, but this hasn't been established in what I've read. So I've gotten the impression that, because she'd been willing to serve them before, they were taken by surprise when she drew this line.

    Is this what we want in our marketplace: people walking into a shop and first asking diffidently about the owner's personal beliefs to avoid offending his/her religious sensibilities? Seems like the tail wagging the dog to me. Is it a business or isn't it?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 13, 2015 5:43 a.m.

    My only problem with this is are these vendors taking the same principled stance against others who live lives not in agreement with their moral code? Do they no sell products to those who have premarital sex? Do they refuse service to the man cheating on his wife? Does she refuse service to those who have had abortions? Where exactly is the line?

    When we choose to stand in judgement of others and decide who is worthy of service, and who is not, we put ourselves in real dangerous territory. She was not being asked to perform the ceremony. She is not being asked to assist in an abortion.

    On the other hand, it is amazing that this couple who considered themselves "friends" of this lady would knowingly put her in this position as well. If they cared about her in the least, they would not made the request. And it is a common thing. When we have friends over - they knowing my religious beliefs - ask or don't bring wine to dinner, knowing what i believe. The gay couple is just as rude for asking this lady to do something they knew she didn't not believe in.

  • Xpat1961 Sweden, 00
    April 13, 2015 1:49 a.m.

    I really can't believe someone posted here that counting blacks as 3/5 of a person did them a favor?

  • Xpat1961 Sweden, 00
    April 13, 2015 1:27 a.m.

    So in the opinion of most of the opinions here, she would be in the moral right to not sell flowers to a catholic, mormon, muslim or jewish wedding because those people practice another faith that goes against hers. Yes, she is just a little grain of sand in a huge beach of discrimination, but she has caused herself to stand out as a symbol to the others.

  • TheWalker Saratoga Springs, UT
    April 13, 2015 1:06 a.m.

    So what happens if laws are immoral and corrupt? Are we obligated to abide by them?

    Kudos to this brave woman for standing up for her Constitutional rights!

  • Snippy Las Vegas, NV
    April 12, 2015 11:51 p.m.

    The reason why religious people are concerned about their constitutional rights is because government didn't create marriage. Government borrowed marriage from religion. Government has now redefined marriage and is forcing that definition upon religious people. Force is unfriendly.

  • intervention slc, UT
    April 12, 2015 9:56 p.m.

    @mick
    You seem to be missing the forest through the trees. Were you draw the line (at the counter or catering an event) does not change all the challenges outlines by Tolstoy when we allow discrimination.

  • Curtis Hight Anchorage, AK
    April 12, 2015 8:07 p.m.

    If, a woman working in the vicinity of the University of Virginia sold party supplies and sometimes helped set up for parties was asked by male customers to supply and help set up for their upcoming frat party, and she responded: "Yes, I know the Rolling Stone story was a lie, but nevertheless I find the underlying notions of a frat party disrespectful to women and humanity and so I politely decline," then, what would be similar and what would be different in our governmental response and civic conversation? What might Secretary Clinton, Senator Rand Paul, and Governor Jeb Bush say?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 12, 2015 6:27 p.m.

    Flowers, cakes, pictures may all be loosely associated with weddings, but absolutely none of them are part of the wedding rites. Have you ever heard a minister ask the groom to present the wedding flower to the bride? I've heard them ask for rings, but never flowers.

    In fact, cakes, photos and flowers are totally unnecessary in any Christian, Jewish or civil wedding ceremony. No rabbi, priest or judge requires flowers be present for a wedding solemnization to be completed. There's no spot on the wedding certificate for the name of the florist. In some polytheistic and pagan traditions, flowers might be ritual symbols of fertility, peace, or happiness. I personally witnessed a Hindu worship rite that included flowers and I think cakes, but no one was getting married.

    In short, Ms Stutzman was not being asked to participate in any wedding. She was asked to sell flowers, period. Her interpretation of what that transaction implied was dead wrong.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 12, 2015 6:19 p.m.

    "We had a great relationship until the government stepped in."

    --- No, you had a great relationship until YOU acted in a discriminatory manner against a customer based on his sexual orientation.

    YOU are the one responsible for your problems, nobody else.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    April 12, 2015 6:08 p.m.

    If someone believed that providing me a service would violate their faith, I would hope that they would deny me the service. One of the dilemmas of being a free people is the realization that people will chose to do things many disapprove of. Those who truly love freedom can live with that knowledge. Those who do not will try to force other people to do what they think is right.

    The irony with the situation is that these anti-discrimination laws are always enforced one way. She is liable for refusing to sell flowers, but no will be prosecuted if they refuse to buy flowers from her because of her religious beliefs. In Colorado, a similar same law was used to punish a cake maker that refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding, but was found not applicable where a cake maker refused to make a cake with a scripture he found objectionable. Discrimination is OK as long as it is being used to further the agenda of the left.

    Lets hope that the American people wake up and realize that their freedoms are being slowly stolen away in the name of doing "the right thing."

  • Hubener Hamburg, 00
    April 12, 2015 5:58 p.m.

    Since when is arranging flowers for a wedding considered a religious a sacrament?

    Since when is selling flowers for a wedding considered to be participation in that wedding?

    How did discriminating against gay couples in a business transaction suddenly become an important religious freedom?

    Helmut Hubener

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 12, 2015 5:42 p.m.

    @Desertgirl 3:06 p.m. April 12, 2015

    "What about the gay men who were buying the flowers from her before...what if they were being used for a special romantic night together, would that be a moral conflict?"

    That's part of the story that a lot of people are forgetting. The florist's flowers WERE used, over a lot of years, as love tokens, make-up-after-argument tokens, "I love you" tokens, etc. She had been participating in activities promoting their love, relationship and life together for a considerable amount of time (a lot more than just providing flowers for one occasion). She wanted to establish herself as their "personal florist" and she knew exactly for what her flower arrangements were being used -- as love tokens in a gay love and fornication-based relationship. And then, when they had every expectation (from prior conduct and involvement in their relationship) that "their personal florist" would provide flowers for their wedding, she figuratively stabbed them in the back. I find that to be incredibly hypocritical on her behalf.

    She knowingly violated Washington statutes. She should have to pay, from her own resources, the price for doing so.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 12, 2015 4:48 p.m.

    If my fiancee went to a florist with whom we had a friendly, long-term business relationship - and someone we considered a friend - and that person refused to accept our money for flowers for our wedding because that person didn't think we had any right to get married - and thus hurt the person I love - I'd probably sue too.

  • Desertgirl Millcreek, UT
    April 12, 2015 3:06 p.m.

    So, you should decide who can buy your flowers based on what they are using your flowers for? How about all of the men who are buying flowers to wine and dine a woman to sleep with her....is that a moral conflict? What about the gay men who were buying the flowers from her before...what if they were being used for a special romantic night together, would that be a moral conflict? What about flowers provided for a hotel that will host a meeting on abortion rights? Are you going to have a form that the client must fill out beforehand to decide if their use for the flowers is acceptable to you? What if I were a florist and I wouldn't do Mormon weddings because I know that some men are currently still being sealed to more than one woman in the temple and they don't support equal rights for all people and I find that morally repulsive. Would it bother you that I am discriminating against you? Turn the argument around on yourself and see how it feels.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    April 12, 2015 12:13 p.m.

    The Stutzman/Arlene Flowers saga is a masterpiece of irony.

    In Washington State (unlike Utah), the public accommodations statute includes sexual-orientation as a protected class. It also bars discrimination based on age, religion, and gender.

    So here we have a 70-year old, religious, female.

    She has enjoyed treble protection under the WA statute in her personal interactions with all other retail businesses.

    Yet in the conduct of HER business, she believes she is entitled to violate that same law.

    In all the sympathetic coverage, there is no indication that she ever participated in any manner during the legislative process where sexual-orientation was added to the WA protected classes. Nor is it apparent that she has made any effort to lobby to remove that class from the law prior to this dispute. And no surprise either that she has not advocated to remove age, religion, or gender as protected classes.

    No.

    She seeks a unilateral exemption from WA law's protection of one class of citizens, while continuing to receive the personal benefits under WA law that prevent businesses from treating her any differently due to her age, gender or religion.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 12, 2015 12:06 p.m.

    Idaho forever:

    Yes, but you can legislate fair and equitable treatment under the law.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    April 12, 2015 11:34 a.m.

    @ Laura Bilington: "This "divinely inspired" document provided for blacks to be counted as 3/5ths of a person. "

    Of course I'm sure you remember from learning American history that counting blacks as 3/5 of a person actually HELPED their cause. It meant that the southern states got FEWER representatives in Congress than if slaves were counted as whole people, and thus these slave states had less power.

    For all readers who think the lady should be forced to make a cake against her values/religious convictions, answer these: Should a Jewish bakery be forced to make an anti-semitic "jihadist" cake? Should a Muslim bakery be forced to decorate a cake featuring a picture of Mohammed? (drawing him is forbidden, you know). Should a gay cake baker be forced to decorate a cake so that it says, "Marriage is between a man and woman"? Should a black cake baker be forced to make a cake for a white supremacist party?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 12, 2015 11:18 a.m.

    I think of her as being a human rights' hero, like Rosa Parks or Harriett Tubman.

    To those who say she should have boycotted her father who was an atheist, you miss the point. The debate is not about discriminating against people but about boycotting an event. About a week ago I read someone who argued that we cannot have religious freedom protection laws, because it would allow a Christian to commit an honor killing. (No, it is some Moslems in other parts of the world who commit honor killings, not Christians). There is an awful lot of appalling ignorance about Christians and that leads to the prejudice that appears in Washington or even on these pages.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 12, 2015 11:12 a.m.

    Not providing service based off all the usual protected criteria is against the law. But the law doesn't state how you have to provide the service. What the LGBT people want is something they can't have. You can't legislate loyalty to your cause. You can't legislate how people think or believe. You can't force people to accept you. It doesn't work that way.

  • Svenn Morgan, UT
    April 12, 2015 10:53 a.m.

    1aggie said:

    "Charlie Craig and his partner were turned away from a bakery which made wedding cakes. A judge ruled against the bakery."

    ====

    Why no outrage at the Muslim Bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan that are on tape denying a homosexual man a wedding cake? Once again, this has nothing to do with "Equal rights", but everything to do with the Left trying to shut Christians...and ONLY Christians down.

    Is it any wonder Americans are showering both Ms. Stutzman and Ms. O'Connor with financial support. Americans clearly see the selective outrage the Left holds for Christians, and the bullying tactics they are using to try and destroy them and their businesses. But, not a word about the Bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan. Very telling indeed!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 12, 2015 10:48 a.m.

    @Utefan60:

    "DN Subscriber, your comments are so mean spirited that I had to respond. Homosexuals have more rights than you do? I don't think so!"

    DN subscriber quoted George Orwell in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

    I can see from your post that you are upset but you didn't go into any detail.

    Recently a Christian baker in Colorado was sanctioned for boycotting a wedding for a gay marriage. He said the marriage violated his beliefs. The Colorado civil rights commission said that was discrimination. So an activist approached a bakery and wanted them to put a message on a cake showing two men getting married with a big red "X" through it. The baker declined. She felt that it violated her beliefs. The activist agreed with her right to decline, but as per the law of Colorado, it was discriminatory so he sued the baker.

    But this time the Colorado civil rights commission sided with the baker's refusal.

    So the law is always against a Christian view. Unequal treatment.

    George Orwell had it right. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

  • delasalle Sandy, UT
    April 12, 2015 10:47 a.m.

    To all those defending her actions, I ask how you would feel if her religious beliefs resulted in her opposing Mormon marriages or interracial marriages or international marriages or even traditional marriages.

    Many like to say our country provides full religious freedom regardless of the outcome. But that isn't true and it never has been. We are free to practice our religion but only to the extent that it doesn't affect the rights of others or directly discriminate against the actions of others.

    You can sit in a church and believe gays are evil. But you can't then refuse them services because you feel this way. What if all florists refused to serve gays (or any other group for that matter)?

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    April 12, 2015 10:42 a.m.

    Maurine-

    The journalist did find the only pizza parlor in the area with religious decorations and ask if they would cater a gay wedding. When does a pizza parlor cater any wedding? The journalist was provoking. And when the owners daughter said they would not cater a gay wedding they had to shut their doors because of all the hate calls. One man threatened to burn the place down. They still are not open. I hope they use that money I sent them for good.

    Tolstoy-

    Gays are allowed in bakeries, florist shops and pizza parlors and are able to shop all they want. There are certain people who do not want to participate in their wedding EVENT. There is a big difference. If there is a time when gaysaren't allow to buy any services because of their sexuality then I will side with them for their liberties. But not when they force others to participate in their events.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    April 12, 2015 10:30 a.m.

    If you make it legal for mom and pop businesses (or any business for that matter) to discriminate against providing services to gay weddings then it makes sense to allow them to refuse services to all gay people for any type of service. Why stop at weddings? If your religion teaches you that homosexuality is an abomination to God, then should you be in your right to refuse services to gay people for renting, eating, etc. Sorry America, that ain't gonna happen, at least not without a fight.

  • Svenn Morgan, UT
    April 12, 2015 10:22 a.m.

    I want to know why LGBTs find small Christian businesses to destroy because they refuse certain services to LGBTs based on their religious convictions, but blatantly ignore Muslim businesses (In The United States) who have also refused services to LGBTs for the same reasons. Why the hostility towards only Christians, but a pass towards Muslims?

    If this issue is truly about "Equal rights" from religion, why are LGBTs not protesting the bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan who refused to make a wedding cake for a man posing as a gay man? We all know if this video showed a Christian business owner refusing to make a wedding cake for a homosexual, LGBTs would be out in force trying to destroy that owner and business.

    Why the double standard?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2015 10:09 a.m.

    @SigmaBlue "... the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman should never be construed as discrimination." And banning mixed race marriage should never be construed as discrimination. And asserting black slavery is God's means of dealing with blacks should never be construed as discrimination.

  • Svenn Morgan, UT
    April 12, 2015 10:05 a.m.

    I really love this lady!

    LGBTs are proving that their complaints about simply wanting "equal rights" by religious people is bogus. They find small Christian business owners (like Ms. Stutzman and Crystal O'Connor) and try to destroy them and their businesses because they happen to be living their convictions, but dutifully ignore blatant proof (a video) that business owners from another religion denied services (baking a wedding cake) to a homosexual man.

    If this were truly about wanting "equality" from religious people, it wouldn't matter what religion it was. Strange LGBTs are only going after Christian business owners. Where's your consistency?

    Just as American citizens rallied to the aid of Crystal O'Connor by donating almost a million dollars to her and her business, the same will happen with Ms. Stutzman.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2015 10:05 a.m.

    @Longfellow:

    You astutely observed "What will likely turn public opinion against gays and their supporters and against any state that has laws like Washington is the optics of 70 year old grandmothers being driven out of business, their homes confiscated, and their life saving appropriated because they refuse to abandon their religious principles. Whether this possible outcome occurs remains to be seen".

    Many people I speak with including those who have a gay child and some gays themselves tell me that they believe this "my way or the highway" approach being taken by the gay activists is a failed strategy. That strategy is turning a lot of heterosexual people to believe that gays are unfair and disengenuous.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 12, 2015 9:58 a.m.

    @miclk
    So should we know allow food establishments to discriminate against African Americans as well as LGBT people as long as some places will serve them? How far do they have to go before it becomes to far 1 mile, 5 miles maybe 20 before it is not all right to discriminate against them? Maybe we should base it on cost if it's 10 perecent more or maybe 20 perecent more to go somewhere else then discrimination is not all all right? When the burden is to high then how do we decide which local company has to serve them? How do we quantify to much burden before it is not all right? There is no way to quantify when the burden is not to high. This is the reality of the situation when it comes to LGBT rights Just like African American rights there is no way to quantify when discrimination is tolerable.

  • taatmk West Jordan, UT
    April 12, 2015 9:51 a.m.

    Interesting to me, that some are complaining that she is seeking publicity. Yet, many advocating their position contrary to this woman's have been "publicizing" their position for years... Once again an example that those in this "movement" belief what's good for the goose is not also good for the ganger. If you cannot understand the metaphor: Now that I have my rights, you cannot do things the same way I did to get them.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    April 12, 2015 9:44 a.m.

    @ Mick: No one "found" the pizza parlor, no one - gay or straight - has ever asked them to cater a wedding. They made an unprovoked, marketing strategy statement. And conservatives lapped it up - the pizzeria received more support, including financial, in spite of not having suffered an actual harm, than the woman in this story.

    And regardless of all the assertions that gay people should just go somewhere else, when they do they are condemned for boycotting the business and forcing it to close due to lack of customers.

    Christian businesses in Mississippi cried foul when other businesses advertised that they would serve all customers for all events - because if those who support equality do all their shopping at businesses that support equality, the businesses that wish to not sell to certain customers for certain events don't get enough business to stay in business.

    So the florist should be able to turn away your wedding business, but you should still use her for all your other needs - or you are being unreasonable and infringing on her religion.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 12, 2015 8:49 a.m.

    @2ClosetoCall:
    "This woman clearly brought this on herself because of her prejudice."

    How have you determined that she was prejudiced? Specifics please.

    Unless you have the unstated assumption that because she believes homosexual marriage is immoral that therefore she is prejudiced.

    Since when have we redefined that having a moral position means 'prejudiced'? If so, then how is that you are not prejudiced too, you obviously have a moral objection to her position.

  • Idaho forever South Jordan, UT
    April 12, 2015 8:32 a.m.

    Barry Goldwater said this many years ago........."You cannot legislate people's hearts"

  • Longfellow Holladay, UT
    April 12, 2015 8:29 a.m.

    Gay activists and supporters see marriage as a civil institution and not a religious ritual. Therefore, participating in a marriage by supplying floral arrangements is a public accommodation. Many religious people see marriage as a religious ritual, even if carried out by purely civil functionaries. Therefore, participation in the ritual of marriage is a form of religious expression.

    Gay activists and supporters either refuse to accept the viewpoint that marriage is a religious institution or they view as illegitimate any religion that does not embrace gay marriage. Many people tend to initially sympathize with individuals that are denied public accommodations. However, there is also a strong public sense that forcing people to choose between their profession and their religion is wrong. Note that that generally doctors whose religion views abortion as an intrinsic evil may not be compelled to perform abortion.

    What will likely turn public opinion against gays and their supporters and against any state that has laws like Washington is the optics of 70 year old grandmothers being driven out of business, their homes confiscated, and their life saving appropriated because they refuse to abandon their religious principles. Whether this possible outcome occurs remains to be seen.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 12, 2015 8:28 a.m.

    When I read the New Testament the clear message I get is that we are to love our neighbors, our fellowmen, and treat them as we would want to be treated.

    Charlie Craig and his partner were turned away from a bakery which made wedding cakes. A judge ruled against the bakery.

    "I have an incredible son named Charlie Craig, the oldest of my three sons who now lives in the Denver area. I have, like any other parent, encouraged him to be himself, to find his strengths in life and to have an open mind, and to always deal fairly with others. In high school Charlie was always helping out friends in trouble, I used to tell him that he had a “social worker’s heart.”

    .....The decision that Judge Spencer made has renewed my hope that no other couple in Colorado will face discrimination by a business owner based on their sexual orientation. It was never about the cake. It was about my son being treated like a lesser person."
    (Deborah Munn, mother of Charlie Craig)

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 12, 2015 8:19 a.m.

    Sigmablue writes, "If we, as a people, allow same sex marriage to prevail in the courts, therein begins the dismantling of our God given rights under our divinely inspired Constitution, and then we, as American citizens, will all lose."

    This "divinely inspired" document provided for blacks to be counted as 3/5ths of a person.

    It provided for the vote to be given to white men with property. Nobody else.

    Seriously--was it bad that these policies were changed, because people woke up to the fact that this discrimination was at odds with the "all men are created equal" line? Or, using your words, that white men's God given rights (to have slaves, to keep women disenfranchised) were dismantled? Please tell me how, "as American citizens we all" lost?

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    April 12, 2015 8:16 a.m.

    The civil rights argument is so disingenuous. The blacks were not allowed at ANY lunch counter. However, the gays seem to always find the ONE who won't participate in their event when there are many who would.

    Who really would want a pizza parlor to cater their wedding? But the left found them out and exposed them.

    This isn't about rights or even protection for the gays. Please gay people, understand that the left wing is using you for their attack on religion.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    April 12, 2015 8:15 a.m.

    The ADF, the anti-gay group representing the florist, failed to convince the court that selling flowers for a wedding was a religious activity.

    In a similar case involving a photographer, the ADF failed to convince New Mexico's Supreme Court that photographing a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple was a violation of her rights of free expression and religion. In part, New Mexico's high court stated, "Saying you'll photograph gay people but not gay marriages would the same as a restaurant offering a full menu to male customers, refusing to serve entrees to women, and defending itself by saying women could order appetizers." The US Supreme Court allowed New Mexico's ruling to stand.

    The florist in Richland, Washington remains free to speak and believe, as she wishes. She may pray and follow her religion's rules in her personal life. However in the marketplace, the florist is obligated by law, as a public accommodation, to channel her conduct, not her beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 12, 2015 8:06 a.m.

    @K_ANN

    "I think people are missing the point - the couple was not being denied business - the florist declined to participate in a religious ceremony."

    No, you're missing the point. The woman is running a business and denied a couple the right to purchase from that business. A florist doesn't participate in a ceremony; rather, she provides flowers and places them where told to in a building. I've yet to see a wedding ceremony where the florist has any role in the ceremony or service. In fact, once she's done setting up the flowers, she's free to leave and, unless invited, is not expected to stay.

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    April 12, 2015 7:43 a.m.

    While I understand and support a baker in not providing a cake which has on it an indication of homosexual purpose I do not understand not providing flowers unless she is forced to provide with them some indication it is for a homosexual wedding. She did not make the flowers, she would only arrange them and since the arranging in the past was not offensive to her for these same customers the new use for the same thing (arranging) seems to not infringe upon her practice of religion rather it opposes the after sale use of the product by a client which seems rather silly.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 12, 2015 7:38 a.m.

    @ Rocket Science

    "To what extent should persons be forced to participate against what is their religious convictions?"

    I think this is the question that the Alliance Defending Freedom - they're representing the florist - is hoping to get to SCOTUS and answered in their favor. But this is just one way of framing the question and it conveniently leaves out a germane fact: the existing anti-discrimination ordinance.

    So isn't the question, "To what extent should religious belief be allowed to exempt a private citizen from civil law in the public marketplace?"

    This is the real battle being waged and, IMO, it's far more a political one than a religious one. Imagine the power that religious individuals would gain if they're allowed to subject their customers to their personal beliefs. Imagine the power this would give to their religions! The government would have conceded that religious belief trumps civil law in every sphere, public and private. And the wall between church and state would come tumbling down.

    Be careful what you wish for. That wall is what has been protecting believers from each other.

  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    April 12, 2015 7:13 a.m.

    You are in business to serve everyone, leave your personal beliefs at home.

  • windsor City, Ut
    April 12, 2015 3:57 a.m.

    She may think she is only "a little grain of sand"--but she is THE florist who the world thinks of when reading anything about 'florists' or 'bakers' or 'photographers' etc who are sued and punished when they choose not to be a part of a same sex wedding.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    April 12, 2015 3:04 a.m.

    What this lady is doing by denying service to gay people is completely immoral in my belief system!

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    April 12, 2015 3:02 a.m.

    This woman clearly brought this on herself because of her prejudice. She clearly is willing to still provide service for other lifestyles that she disagrees with according to her religion like divorced people getting remarried, agnostics or atheists who marry, etc. She just happens to draw the line at Gay people, it clearly has nothing to do with a perfect God.

  • bamidan WEST RICHLAND, WA
    April 12, 2015 1:07 a.m.

    We the consumers have the power. Why would we want to give this power to the government? When I have issues with a business, or if they have issues with me, I have the opportunity to take my business elsewhere and let others know of my experience. Should the government be in the business of coercion? Once they start coercing selling, soon coercing buying will follow. I'd much prefer the market place to be the determining factor. Plus it's nice to know who the bigots are, so I know who I'll avoid.

  • B ob Richmond, CA
    April 11, 2015 11:48 p.m.

    Since there was another florist...meaning this florist wasn't the only available option...what is the problem?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 11, 2015 11:22 p.m.

    @rocket science
    What do you think this whole discussion is about? If someone decision to ignore accommodation and none discrimination laws as they apply to business then they may lose Thier business, that's the choice they make. Religous beliefs do not trump others rights when it comes to accomadations in the past nor do they do so now.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    April 11, 2015 9:34 p.m.

    Some Christians believe, based on the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin. This florist is one of them. In spite of that, she is more than willing to sell flowers to a homosexual man courting another homosexual man, she will sell them flowers to celebrate their fornication and living together - but when they, according to civil law and the dictates of their religion, want to formalize their relationship and provide each other legal protections in case of future negative events, she draws a line.

    The Bible doesn't say homosexual marriage is wrong - it says homosexuality is wrong. So why are those who use the Bible as a reason to deny services to homosexuals waiting so long to make those denials? If you are truly against supporting homosexual activity, why support it at any level?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 11, 2015 9:13 p.m.

    I guess Black people in the 50's and 60's should have just shut up and found a business that would serve them and a bus they could ride. Those old prohibitions were based on religious principles, too, you know.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 11, 2015 9:10 p.m.

    It does not matter were you try to redraw the line were discrimination is going to be all right, it is never all right. it was true with the Natove Americans, it was true with the Irish, the Getmans, the Chinse, the African Amercians, etc... It true know with the LGBT and Latino communities now and will be true with which ever minority is next in line. People have tried to hide behind religion to justify Thier prejudice since the Native Americans (mana fast destiny, claiming they are savages) claiming rut violates your religous beliefs was a failed argument then and a failed argument now for justifying discrimination.

  • Young Moderate Logan, UT
    April 11, 2015 8:33 p.m.

    @DN Subscriber

    That quote is from Animal Farm. Not 1984. Same author though. Just an FYI.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 11, 2015 7:56 p.m.

    Interesting that no one who dares the questions:

    To what extent should persons be forced to participate against what is their religious convictions?
    Should a florist have to change their business? Should a baker be forced out of business?

    Even if there are other persons who Would/Could perform SSM: Should a Judge be forced to quit? Should elected officials be recalled or forced to perform marriage that is against their religion? Should there be a law against running for public offices where there is authority perform marriage if a person is religiously against SSM?

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    April 11, 2015 7:44 p.m.

    I'm not a fan of SSM, but that doesn't give me a right to deny my services to those that believe differently than I do. Most people today are disgusted at how blacks were denied services in the not so distant past. One day most people will look back and wonder why there was so much hate and resentment against the LGBT. Of course there will always be ignorant individuals driven by fear to hate others that are different from themselves.

    The golden rule is still golden.

  • Justiciaparatodos Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2015 7:21 p.m.

    @Impartial7

    If a Southern Baptist or anyone else wants to deny flowers for my Mormon wedding due to his religious conscience SO BE IT! I will find another florist and I will not sue the florist, threaten their life, or boycot their business!

    I hope her appeal is successful. This is another example of why the good will many heteros had for gays has evaporated. I spoke to a dear friend who has a gay son and he stated to me his son believes there needs to be give and take on these issues. I totally applaud and respect his gay son for his integrity - I hold out my good will to him for his good judgement!

    The gay agenda continues to drop to new lows each passing day. I hope good will gays will not end up on the short end of the stick secondary to the actions of the militant minority?

  • SigmaBlue Centerville, UT
    April 11, 2015 7:06 p.m.

    How can it be discrimination when a person is upholding 6000 years of traditional, lawful marriage? All western civilization's laws are based upon the ten commandments; just look at the symbols and images in our Supreme Court building. Is God then discriminating against others? I can't say this anymore strenuously, this woman is not discriminatory nor has she done anything illegal in upholding her Christian values. The judge in this case is woefully misguided, and has refused to apply the U.S. Constitution appropriately in protecting this woman's rights. If the Gay couple were refused service based on religious grounds, they could have easily gone to another flower shop rather than trying to destroy this woman's livelihood. If we, as a people, allow same sex marriage to prevail in the courts, therein begins the dismantling of our God given rights under our divinely inspired Constitution, and then we, as American citizens, will all lose.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    April 11, 2015 7:01 p.m.

    I personally do not believe in SSM; however, if I were in the wedding business I might take on a gay partner who would be better suited to the SS crowd. This way, I could survive on an ever encroaching government, and still keep my values. There's an idea for you! Both sides to this issue are trying to prove a point here. I don't believe in needless discrimination, but we all discriminate on a daily basis. If a business won't sell their services to you find someone who will. Mindless lawsuits don't help anyone!

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2015 6:18 p.m.

    DN Subscriber, your comments are so mean spirited that I had to respond. Homosexuals have more rights than you do? I don't think so!

    That is the most ridiculous argument you've put out there for a long time. And frankly how dare you? So you know "homosexuals" are tax paying American citizens, who are children of a very loving God. Just because you don't see it that way is your right. However, it is discrimination in the utmost.

    You have every civil right, including freedom of religion. yet you want to deny basic civil rights to those you don't like?

    This country was founded as a secular Republic with many restrictions on the involvement of religion in our secular laws.

    Keep your religious beliefs out of US Citizens rights to fair and equal treatment under our Constitution.

    Your claim that you are "discriminated against due to homosexuals" is just terrible.

    What rights did you loose? Maybe the only right you think you have lost is your self appointed right to tell others what to do. That right was never in a true religion! Nor in our US Constitution.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    April 11, 2015 5:41 p.m.

    ordinaryfolks:

    The money is for the lawsuit we all know is coming. Many gay causes gain funding in the same way. And it seems that many believe that religious Americans have First Amendment rights only behind closed doors.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    April 11, 2015 5:22 p.m.

    One of the men in this couple was a long time customer of this lady and her flower shop. He was never denied service. She didn't want to participate in his wedding event for religious reasons. His partner decided to blast her on Facebook and the intolerant left got a hold of this.

    Events aren't people. You can't discriminate against events.

    The hypocrisy is astounding.

  • bamafone Salem, UT
    April 11, 2015 4:50 p.m.

    Everyone has some prejudice and bias, and everyone discriminates in his or her own way.....that doesn't mean we are bad. What it means is that we are free to choose what we believe. Leave the woman alone and go mind your own predudice.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    April 11, 2015 4:44 p.m.

    What a delusional woman! And those praising her are no better.

    Imagine it was your son or daughter, newly surprised by the wonderful fact that they could marry their partner of nine years, who was insulted by their longtime florist who had made all their love bouquets.

    "The support has far outweighed the bad," she said. "If (Rob) comes in, I would give him a hug and catch up on his life."

    --- All she has to do is read any of the reports on how Rob felt. He writes that he went home to his fiance and they both stayed up all night upset, feeling that a longtime friend, who had participated in their courtship of nine years, had denigrated their love and stabbed them.

    Remember, her refusal was illegal, so Rob had no reason to expect it.

    All this took place after the Legislature passed marriage equality, but petitions started by catholic bishops forced a referendum, during which churches like hers ran campaigns against equality and people dug in.

    In my view, she refused because she would not have been able to show her face in church otherwise, not because of her "relationship with Jesus Christ".

    What blasphemy!

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2015 4:35 p.m.

    The religious conservatives have a good point in this argument. If their religion, or their belief, or their God, or their holy book, tells them to discriminate against a certain type of person, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? There is a thing called freedom of religion in this country.
    We all know that certain types of sins are worse than others.
    In other words, your sins are worse than mine, therefore, you are a lower sort of human than I am (especially if there is some cultural or physical trait that sets us apart).
    Go read Leviticus (that's a book of the Bible), you'll see what I mean.

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    April 11, 2015 4:32 p.m.

    Tolerance is a one sided thing for some leftists and supporters of gay marriage. Having won the culture war, they seem to believe it's time to round up the prisoners and shoot the ones who won't convert to their way of seeing things.

  • DfanRed Mesa, AZ
    April 11, 2015 4:31 p.m.

    If she is willing to sell flowers to the young men then she should sell the flowers for any occasion. The law is the law. I don't like all laws but I follow them. She choose a public business, not a religious one. She should pay the fine and follow the law or get out of the business.

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    April 11, 2015 3:54 p.m.

    She sounds like a kind, loving woman. I feel bad for her, for the fight she has to fight. I feel bad that there are those who would bully and harass her because of her religious beliefs. Unfortunately the far left gay extremists are carrying their equal rights campaign too far. It's not really about equal rights for the Gay Gestapo. It's about, "fall in line and respect me or else." Similar to the muslim extremists who have hijacked religion for terror, there are some in the gay community who demand that everyone capitulate their beliefs so that they align with their extreme views. It will take many brave muslims and gays to speak out against the extremists who have hijacked their respective causes.

  • K_ANN Palatka, FL
    April 11, 2015 3:52 p.m.

    I think people are missing the point - the couple was not being denied business - the florist declined to participate in a religious ceremony. The government should never have usurped control over marriage to begin with. And a law that violates the First Amendment is unconstitutional. Impartial7 does ask a valid question, yes I defend their right to believe what they believe and I live in the Bible Belt, most of my relatives are Southern Baptist. I would avoid a store if I expected to be mistreated but I know I'd never prove any misconceptions wrong by filing lawsuits or responding in anger.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2015 3:40 p.m.

    @Ken
    "A gay man who married a woman would indeed be able to buy flowers for their wedding from her, which proves she isn't discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation."

    Is it racist to oppose interracial marriage?

    @samhill
    Invoking Nazi era atrocities is hardly civil discourse and the protests are against incivility. You all say that tolerance is a two-way street. Okay... then why are you all supporting the briefs to the Supreme Court urging them to ban same-sex marriage?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2015 3:37 p.m.

    @SigmaBlue
    "but standing up for your constitutional rights and the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman should never be construed as discrimination. "

    If someone is discriminating against someone, whether it's because of hate for the individual or sincere religious belief, it's still discrimination. That's just the way it is, I'm sorry. Would you like me to stop referring to the trashcan as a trashcan, or the lamppost as a lamppost? Discrimination is discrimination.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 11, 2015 3:29 p.m.

    " While her father was an atheist, Stutzman and her mother went to church every Sunday."

    Well then, she must have refused to sell flowers to her father too.

    After all, by being an atheist, he is in direct violation of the FIRST and possibly second commandments.

    BTW, where's the commandment against gays?

    "Thou shalt NOT sell flowers to gays."

    That must have been on the tablet Moses accidentally dropped on the way down the mountain.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 11, 2015 3:29 p.m.

    She was not asked to perform a service that she would not provide to a straight couple. I think she's pretty much guilty as charged, and apparently rather handsomely better off for it.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 11, 2015 2:45 p.m.

    It is fact that Washington state has a law that say that you may not discriminate in public business on the grounds of sexual orientation.

    It is fact that this was a same sex wedding.

    It is fact that the "nice old lady" refused to offer her services to a gay couple.

    She was correctly fined for refusing to offer her otherwise publicly available services.

    If she had the courage of her faith, she would accept her "punishment" and go about her faith. Instead she splashes her name around and allows for a publicity campaign with in part allows her to make money.

    If she does not wish to provide services to the public in a non-discriminatory way, then she ought to find another state in which to ply her trade. Otherwise, she has to obey the law as do we all.

    All arguments in sympathy with her are completely bogus based on the facts of the matter, and are merely hay for the right wing outrage campaigns that assault us daily.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2015 2:33 p.m.

    The people who are parading their anti-religious bigotry around as a clash of civil rights are in for a rude awakening one day.

    This version of "Krystal Nacht" intolerance of anyone who disagrees with the notion of homosexual "marriage" will, inevitably, result in yet more intolerance of differing view points and a much less civil world.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2015 2:32 p.m.

    As George Orwell noted in his book, 1984, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal."

    Such has become the so-called "equal rights for homosexuals" movement.

    Posting addresses and encouraging bullying of a sexual minority is unacceptable. But, the same actions targeting those who exercise political free speech to advocate not changing our laws is commonplace.

    The left's demands for "tolerance" extends only to their chosen types of behavior or beliefs. But, strangely they never protest against one religion which imposes the death penalty for simply being gay. So much for equal rights and respect for all religions.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 11, 2015 2:21 p.m.

    This woman is wrapping up discrimination in her flag of religion. Now, before D-News commenters jump to her rescue, just remember; Southern Baptists don't believe Mormon are real Christians. How would they like to be denied services at businesses because they are Mormon?

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    April 11, 2015 2:06 p.m.

    I applaud her and her decisions are not only defensible, but admirable. She is not discriminating against anyone for being gay. Just as the story points out - she has and will sell flowers to gay people. A gay man who married a woman would indeed be able to buy flowers for their wedding from her, which proves she isn't discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. Similarly, a heterosexual man marrying another man would not be able to buy flowers for their wedding from her.

    Marriage is not sexual orientation. I applaud her.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    April 11, 2015 1:22 p.m.

    For the record, I am one of those who have contributed to the campaign for her support (on GoFundMe). I encourage others to consider doing likewise.

  • Quickslow87 Dallas, TX
    April 11, 2015 1:18 p.m.

    The government is prosecuting a grandma? That's called "bad optics."

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    April 11, 2015 1:05 p.m.

    I have no doubt in my mind that Ms. Stutzman is a good woman who is trying to follow her beliefs as she has been taught or as she perceives them. However, discrimination based on religion or any other reason is still discrimination, therefore, illegal.

    I am terribly sorry for her legal fees. She should send those bills to the pastor of her church for him to pay them. After all, his misguided teachings put her in this predicament.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    April 11, 2015 12:51 p.m.

    This woman was convicted of violating Washington State's anti-discrimination law that protects everyone from discrimination in public accommodations. She was fined $1,000 plus $1 in court cost. An anti-gay organization, the ADF, paid her legal fees. As a result of her conviction for this crime, she raised $85,000 on gofundme.com, of which $83,999 is profit.

    Washington State also has a Son of Sam law that prevents people convicted of crimes from profiting from those crimes indirectly. It allows the victims of crimes, in this case the two men who were denied service because of their sexual orientation, to sue to claim any profits realized from the crime.

    I hope the two men pursue this. No one should be allowed to profit from a crime.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 11, 2015 12:32 p.m.

    To what extent should persons be forced to participate against what is their religious convictions?
    Should a florist have to change their business? Should a baker be forced out of business?

    Even if there are other persons who Would/Could perform SSM: Should a Judge be forced to quit? Should elected officials be recalled or forced to perform marriage that is against their religion? Should there be a law against running for public offices that have the authority to marry if the person is religiously against SSM?

    All questions that need to be answered.

  • SigmaBlue Centerville, UT
    April 11, 2015 12:10 p.m.

    This is a sad commentary on religious freedom in America. The Gay community are the champions of intolerance. I don't hate them or anyone else, but standing up for your constitutional rights and the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman should never be construed as discrimination. We need more judges with the moral courage to uphold people's "inalienable rights."