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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
RanchHandNot 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?
@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.
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?
@Mayfair 10:42 a.m. April 13, 2015And, 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.
@ 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?
@ 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?
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...
@TekakaromatagiOne 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.
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?
@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.
@ 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?
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.
I really can't believe someone posted here that counting blacks as 3/5 of a
person did them a favor?
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.
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
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.
@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.
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?
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.
"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.
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."
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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
Idaho forever:Yes, but you can legislate fair and equitable
treatment under the law.
@ 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?
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.
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
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!
@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."
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)?
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.
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.
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
@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
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.
@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.
@miclkSo 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.
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.
@ 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
@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.
Barry Goldwater said this many years ago........."You cannot legislate
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.
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)
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?
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.
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
@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.
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.
@ 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.
You are in business to serve everyone, leave your personal beliefs at home.
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.
What this lady is doing by denying service to gay people is completely immoral
in my belief system!
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.
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.
Since there was another florist...meaning this florist wasn't the only
available option...what is the problem?
@rocket scienceWhat 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.
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?
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.
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
@DN SubscriberThat quote is from Animal Farm. Not 1984. Same author
though. Just an FYI.
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?
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.
@Impartial7If 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?
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@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? @samhillInvoking 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?
@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.
" 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
The government is prosecuting a grandma? That's called "bad
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.
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.
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.
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