Nah. Jesus was misquoted. What he actually said was, "Love thy neighbour, so long as they are like you. If they are not the sort of person you would like living next door, they're not really neighbours".
10
I could not in my conscience sell cigarettes to anyone. There are a lot of retail establishments I couldn't work for. As far as people with different life styles, we should be tolerant and not obsess. It isn't healthy.
2
Have we completely taken leave of our common sense?
4
She says to be afraid because that is the formula the current run of christians are programmed to say. They are evoking sympathy for the historically persecuted Christian victims. Al Capone thought he was persecuted too.
13
She sold these guys flowers for years. She knew who they were and had no trouble taking their money. But then she saw a chance to become a right-wing celebrity or, to be fair, some crafty theocrat put her up to it.
23
Now imagine a doctor or dentist who sets up a "christian" practice with the same attitudes about serving non-believers or sinners.
10
Scared. Yes. That's what America does best. With entire industries and political parties built around the seeding and fomenting of fear. Boo!
11
I hope they spend all of their money on lawyer's fees. Better yet, I hope their lawyers are gay, closeted of course, until the case is concluded and they have cashed the checks.
6
Yet another reason to fear religion. America is more of a theocracy than we would ever admit. We ought not to criticize other countries when we have three-bit televangelists bilking the faithful of millions all the while claiming religious tax exempt status. Save us from the faithful!
14
If we lived in an adult culture, the Government will not be in the business of forcing people to provide a product or services to unwanted customers. But every "we reserve the right to refuse services" sign brings out the dead-enders who think every transaction is a return to the bad old days of the South in the 1950's. So will a court now issue an order requiring her to provide flowers or will she simply be fined until she is out of business? Consequences. Litigants tend not to think of them.
Many making comments tend to err in their knowledge of how religion views same-sex marriage. As a Protestant, we believe in "sola scriptura" or our faith must come solely from scripture. The Bible treats erotic same-sex activities as behavioral, not as a relationship. So some churchs ( including the one I belong to) believe that "love" is the guiding principal and thus are willing to perform same-sex marriages. As many know, love and marriage are two different ideas and often do not come together. Since scripture is at best ambiguous about these relationships, many churchs are happy to knuckle under to the culture and perform these marriages.
Rather than change facts and engage in conjecture, I can only say that freedom is seldom lost at the point of a gun. In this country, it is eroded from people putting their faith in the limited wisdom of lawyers. Most of these issues can be worked out among the parties, if people only had the courage to do so.
Many making comments tend to err in their knowledge of how religion views same-sex marriage. As a Protestant, we believe in "sola scriptura" or our faith must come solely from scripture. The Bible treats erotic same-sex activities as behavioral, not as a relationship. So some churchs ( including the one I belong to) believe that "love" is the guiding principal and thus are willing to perform same-sex marriages. As many know, love and marriage are two different ideas and often do not come together. Since scripture is at best ambiguous about these relationships, many churchs are happy to knuckle under to the culture and perform these marriages.
Rather than change facts and engage in conjecture, I can only say that freedom is seldom lost at the point of a gun. In this country, it is eroded from people putting their faith in the limited wisdom of lawyers. Most of these issues can be worked out among the parties, if people only had the courage to do so.
5
So the young black gentlemen at the Woolworth's lunch counter should have tried to "work it out" with the store's management over their access?
There are several errors in your argument. First, no one is saying businesses must do business with all unwanted customers; they just can't decide to not serve customers for unconstitutional reasons. Deciding not to serve barefoot customers in your restaurant? Perfectly legal. Deciding not to serve black customers? NOT.
Second, it doesn't matter how religion views same-sex marriage. This may come as a shocker but most people don't believe in what a particular religion thinks about things. That's the beauty of living in a pluralistic society that says you can believe and practice what you want until your practice denies my rights.
When you talk about freedom, are you talking about specifically religious freedom? It's not the only freedom that matters, and like all others, it doesn't trump (pardon the pun) the rest.
There are several errors in your argument. First, no one is saying businesses must do business with all unwanted customers; they just can't decide to not serve customers for unconstitutional reasons. Deciding not to serve barefoot customers in your restaurant? Perfectly legal. Deciding not to serve black customers? NOT.
Second, it doesn't matter how religion views same-sex marriage. This may come as a shocker but most people don't believe in what a particular religion thinks about things. That's the beauty of living in a pluralistic society that says you can believe and practice what you want until your practice denies my rights.
When you talk about freedom, are you talking about specifically religious freedom? It's not the only freedom that matters, and like all others, it doesn't trump (pardon the pun) the rest.
13
Public accommodation wins. Once I open my doors to the general public I surrender certain rights. Its a choice we make.
The perversity of this coward hiding her intolerance behind her bible in the name of "freedom" and "choice" is repulsive.
If she had any courage at all she would close up shop and act as a consultant, where she could pick and choose her clients. But she chooses to be open to the public at larrge.
The perversity of this coward hiding her intolerance behind her bible in the name of "freedom" and "choice" is repulsive.
If she had any courage at all she would close up shop and act as a consultant, where she could pick and choose her clients. But she chooses to be open to the public at larrge.
38
Freedom of religion is freedom to practice your religion. Freedom of religion is freedom from other people practicing their religion on you.
How dare Hobby Shack decide that its employees should live as Catholics.
Reminds me of the thrice-married clerk refusing to allow gays to marry.
There needs to be a stronger word than hypocrite.
How dare Hobby Shack decide that its employees should live as Catholics.
Reminds me of the thrice-married clerk refusing to allow gays to marry.
There needs to be a stronger word than hypocrite.
16
My view of Christian hypocrisy prevents me speaking to you, much less doing business with you. Good thing Jesus would not have hung around tax collectors and prostitutes, eh? That would have sent a bad message.
8
Can she refuse to do the flowers for a Klingon themed wedding? Because she is not comfortable?
4
The likelihood that the KKK or some other Anti-Semitic will knowingly hire a Black or Jewish owned business to bake a cake, etc., is remote to just never in the cards. Bigots do not ask those who are the target of their hate to provide services to their bigotry filled events. There may be way too many Ms. Stutzmans out there, but they actually deserve to be sued out of existence or in the alternative boycotted into oblivion.
People may falsely believe that DJT granted them the right to behave as they may choose, i.e., secondary to religious beliefs or alt-right ideology, but first the laws that prevent that bigoted behavior would have to be eradicated from law and the history that made these laws necessary. What the bigots don't realize is that all the law which protects those groups they despise also protect them from similar bigotry. A good example of how the law protects would be the Creative design people. Just because I think the Creative Design people are too stupid to live, doesn't mean that I have the right not to sell them condoms, flowers, food, dishes or kill them in the name of my beliefs.
Succinctly speaking, the point at which the Courts allow discrimination on the basis of an individually held belief, no matter how correct or incorrect it might be, is when the US Constitution is dead. Hence, no more USA.
People may falsely believe that DJT granted them the right to behave as they may choose, i.e., secondary to religious beliefs or alt-right ideology, but first the laws that prevent that bigoted behavior would have to be eradicated from law and the history that made these laws necessary. What the bigots don't realize is that all the law which protects those groups they despise also protect them from similar bigotry. A good example of how the law protects would be the Creative design people. Just because I think the Creative Design people are too stupid to live, doesn't mean that I have the right not to sell them condoms, flowers, food, dishes or kill them in the name of my beliefs.
Succinctly speaking, the point at which the Courts allow discrimination on the basis of an individually held belief, no matter how correct or incorrect it might be, is when the US Constitution is dead. Hence, no more USA.
3
Ms. Stutzman: I a very, very relieved. Not scared. You are still free to practice your religious belief. Shake hands with these respectable gentleman and let's move on. Sell your flowers, enjoy your life.
10
Ms.Stutzman, so when the rose wholesaler has a religious rebirth decides not to deliver roses to you on February 13th based on their religious freedoms, for whatever reason, that's fair, right?
3
If she is against making flower arrangements for gay marriages, I believe Ms Stutzman needs to require some heavy 'vetting' for all of her patrons who are planning to marry. Who knows what kinds of sexual practices they may be indulging in that are not within the moral confines of her religion?
12
Discrimination based on race is not at all comparable to "discrimination" based upon an unwillingness to participate practically in an activity one deems to be immoral. Like the Obama mandates on contraction and transgenderism, such a law and the judicial ruling affirming it merely substitutes a liberal ideology for a religious view, and then coerces others to embrace it. The bias here is on the part of the plaintiffs, who after years of respectful and decent treatment by the florist decided they had to have their pound of flesh for her effrontery of rejecting the legitimacy of their private sexual behavior.
4
She sold flowers to the public with no issues.
I think this is a bit more complicated than people are making it out to be. Just because you have a shingle and provide some standard items, does that mean you're obligated to do custom work for everyone? On what basis could you take a pass? Isn't the crux of the issue here the "custom" aspect of the service, and how involved should we require a custom business to be?
It seems to me that we need to explore the edge cases to make sure we wouldn't make unfair exceptions.
Would it be okay for a caterer to refuse to cater a bris, on the grounds that one is against male genital mutilation?
How about black bakers being forced by law to prepare a custom cake for a KKK party? What if they requested an icing-decorated noose on top of the cake?
What if they were asked to do this for a weekly KKK meeting?
Neo-Nazis could have a field day, trolling people and winning lawsuits.
I think this is a bit more complicated than people are making it out to be. Just because you have a shingle and provide some standard items, does that mean you're obligated to do custom work for everyone? On what basis could you take a pass? Isn't the crux of the issue here the "custom" aspect of the service, and how involved should we require a custom business to be?
It seems to me that we need to explore the edge cases to make sure we wouldn't make unfair exceptions.
Would it be okay for a caterer to refuse to cater a bris, on the grounds that one is against male genital mutilation?
How about black bakers being forced by law to prepare a custom cake for a KKK party? What if they requested an icing-decorated noose on top of the cake?
What if they were asked to do this for a weekly KKK meeting?
Neo-Nazis could have a field day, trolling people and winning lawsuits.
8
The difference between this and the KKK is that one could successfully be argued to be a protected class, while the other could not.
All things being equal, they never are.
All things being equal, they never are.
7
By the reasoning of this ruling soon grocers will be forced to sell to food to just anyone. Freedom!!!
6
This is non-starter. She owns a business that sells flowers, not religion. If this were an interracial couple, would we be ok with her denying services because she doesn't believe in interracial marriage? Of course not. And just like the winery that produces the wine being served or the cattle rancher that provided the meat for dinner or the designer who designed the wedding attire probably doesn't care whether the buyer is gay or heterosexual nor should they have any voice in how their products are used in a private setting, so should the florist.
12
The court saw this as what it is. Pure discrimination using one's religious belief as an excuse. What next a hotel owner not allowing a couple that were divorced from renting a room? I don't respect people who feel they can wear their religious belief on their sleeve when it's covienent.
12
Flowers at the back of the bus, Ms Stutzman? It's 2017 and your time has passed. I'm not selling to old Christians women anymore, ok?
6
In my 60 plus years, I can remember people being denied services because they were Mexican, Black, inter-racially married etc. Thankfully, the courts continue to recognize that all people are created equal. If they did not Ms. Stutzman at THAT point we should all be very very scared.
6
How interesting that this case was in the news the same week that Bob Jones University (who lost their tax exempt status in 1982) announced that their tax-exempt has been restored, and the racially discriminatory rules that precipitated a case that went all the way to the SCOTUS, weren't biblical at all, but simply a social issue.
Sure these people say their Bible is clear about discriminating against LGBTQ people TODAY. What if it tells them tomorrow or next year or next century it's no big deal? In BJU's case, it also begs the question, if they were wrong about discrimination, what else are they wrong (or inconsistent, or ignorant), or just plain stubborn) about? Why should a business be allowed to discriminate on such a flimsy justification?
If this proprietor had a previously business relationship with the couple, there is no logical reason it could've continued. A business transaction is neither an endorsement of anything. If she would've done flowers for an atheist wedding, she could've (and should've) done this couple's wedding.
Sure these people say their Bible is clear about discriminating against LGBTQ people TODAY. What if it tells them tomorrow or next year or next century it's no big deal? In BJU's case, it also begs the question, if they were wrong about discrimination, what else are they wrong (or inconsistent, or ignorant), or just plain stubborn) about? Why should a business be allowed to discriminate on such a flimsy justification?
If this proprietor had a previously business relationship with the couple, there is no logical reason it could've continued. A business transaction is neither an endorsement of anything. If she would've done flowers for an atheist wedding, she could've (and should've) done this couple's wedding.
2
Congratulations to the state of Washington for supporting people and not prejudice.
Now it would be time for the Supreme Court to change the decision they made for Hobby Lobby not to support women who were in need of contraceptives. That decision is a travesty of justice. The owners of Hobby Lobby have no right to deny a woman employee what should have been made available. Who are they to make such a decision.
Now it would be time for the Supreme Court to change the decision they made for Hobby Lobby not to support women who were in need of contraceptives. That decision is a travesty of justice. The owners of Hobby Lobby have no right to deny a woman employee what should have been made available. Who are they to make such a decision.
11
Refusing to sell and refusing a specific job are not the same thing.
Discrimination laws are to protect the masses. If a store has 5 red roses out 5 different people can by those roses. If I go order 5 yellow roses she can tell me no, for whatever reason she wants or simply no for no reason.
Discrimination laws are to protect the masses. If a store has 5 red roses out 5 different people can by those roses. If I go order 5 yellow roses she can tell me no, for whatever reason she wants or simply no for no reason.
1
Quite a few readers here seem to think that it's ok to discriminate. But argument is very simple. Should I be allowed to put a sign on my business saying I don't sell anything to black people (bible was used to justify racism a hundred years ago)? Or to divorced mothers (divorce in Catholic church is not allowed)? Or to people who are not Christian (they worship false Gods)? Answer to me, is absolute NO. Bible teaches tolerance and treating everyone well. So to invoke that same bible to justify discrimination is hypocritical at best.
20
We should all be very very scared!!
At the number of Stutzman's there are out there.
At the number of Stutzman's there are out there.
10
It's comforting to know that most of them are older and won't be around much longer.
3
Mrs Stutzman : its not a Government issue. its a pure ( and rather simple) legal issue. its THE LAW. you, no doubt, are a law- abiding citizen when it comes to ( most ? all ?) other laws. so this issue is just another law you need to obey. no need to be scared of anything. what is scary is the jungle days, when anything goes ruled the land. we're moving forward, as we hope you're noticing. chill out. be cool and join the progress. Jesus would have MOST DEFINITELY approve of your flowers at the boy's wedding
8
I am firmly on the side of gay rights but I think this ruling was overreaching and starting us down a slippery slope. Remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and the precedence set by this court ruling against a religious conservative can be used against a liberal atheist. Yes, it is discrimination if a business owner refuses to provide service to a specific group. If the florist refused to sell flowers to any gay person than that would be illegal and discriminatory. This florist sold flowers to gay people, she just refused to do the floral arrangements for a specific event, a gay wedding, based on her religious beliefs. This is where the scary overreach begins. What if a Jewish or Black baker refused to provide a cake for a KKK event? Technically, under this ruling, they could liable.
15
Actually, since white supremacists are not a protected class of people, I think that they absolutely could say no. If the bakery wouldn't sell cake to any white people, then they would be in the wrong.
1
You are scared black people will have to do the catering for the KKK?
I'm too busy worrying that a traditional conservative Catholic couple might ask a gay priest to marry them.
I'm too busy worrying that a traditional conservative Catholic couple might ask a gay priest to marry them.
4
Yes, it is scary that someone can be sued for following their christian belief. The men should be sued now for attacking someone that had served them knowing they were gay for years and for not tolerating her religion. She has now been persecuted for her religious beliefs. They should have known better once it was clear the florist was christian, to insist on breaching her personal beliefs. There is more than one florist around surely?
You can all say that her behaviour simply broke a law, but real christians whose religious beliefs are central to their very being who know that the only true marriage, a sacrament deemed so by God, can only ever be between a man and a woman, can never ever accept that secular law, and will turn the other cheek when this offensive legal outcome emerges. To test the depth of the florist's faith, ask her if she would refuse again. She no doubt would, but will now probably shut her business because US law has forgotten natural law.
You can all say that her behaviour simply broke a law, but real christians whose religious beliefs are central to their very being who know that the only true marriage, a sacrament deemed so by God, can only ever be between a man and a woman, can never ever accept that secular law, and will turn the other cheek when this offensive legal outcome emerges. To test the depth of the florist's faith, ask her if she would refuse again. She no doubt would, but will now probably shut her business because US law has forgotten natural law.
1
Let's wait until the first Muslim flower shop owner refuses to seek to a gay couple. That will be OK because we must be tolerant. This court is vicious.
9
She basically threw away her own case when she agreed that providing flowers to a Muslim wedding didn't endorse Islam or providing flowers to an atheist wedding didn't endorse atheism. How can she then argue that providing flowers to a homosexual wedding would endorse homosexuality?
With this sort of roundabout thinking, marriage announcements published in The New York Times mean that someone (the owner? the editor? everyone including the paperboys?) has been personally endorsing thousands of marriages.
With this sort of roundabout thinking, marriage announcements published in The New York Times mean that someone (the owner? the editor? everyone including the paperboys?) has been personally endorsing thousands of marriages.
44
Because she is tolerant of another's religion. The US courts and many supporters of gay marriage (an oxymoron), are not. Provided the muslims were a man and a woman, her argument makes perfect sense.
2
There are two issues.
1. Should some groups of people be considered part of a "protected class", with special laws which apply only to them (i.e."all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"), a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. While no business should be allowed to refuse service to any member of the public, should businesses be forced to perform custom services for all customers? Religious beliefs are irrelevant. The questions are: Should a photographer be forced to cater a neo-Nazi wedding? Should an African-American print shop owner be forced to print invitations for a KKK meeting? Should an atheist florist be forced to make religious-themed flower arrangements for a fundamentalist religious wedding?
It is all or nothing, so watch out for that slippery slope.
1. Should some groups of people be considered part of a "protected class", with special laws which apply only to them (i.e."all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"), a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. While no business should be allowed to refuse service to any member of the public, should businesses be forced to perform custom services for all customers? Religious beliefs are irrelevant. The questions are: Should a photographer be forced to cater a neo-Nazi wedding? Should an African-American print shop owner be forced to print invitations for a KKK meeting? Should an atheist florist be forced to make religious-themed flower arrangements for a fundamentalist religious wedding?
It is all or nothing, so watch out for that slippery slope.
6
I agree, while I think she "should have done the flowers".
If she really cringes at the idea of making flowers for a gay wedding and having to be around many Gay people at the same time she should be allowed to say NO. She was outside of her comfort zone, probably the first time she had even considered the possibility. She shouldn't have to risk her mental health to do this wedding.
If she refused to sell Yellow Roses because of a bad memory with Yellow Roses, would you want to force her to sell Yellow Roses?
I don't know why she didn't inquire on the date, and then say she simply was not available. She could have kept her "beliefs" and there would have been no loss of face by the Gentlemen (I wish them the best of luck in their relationship).
Obviously she is an older person, I was taught to respect my elders, I don't criticizes people who smoke that are older than me. (I am almost 60) I have followed this rule all my life.) I grew up when women wearing pants was the issue of the Day. My grandmother NEVER wore pants.
Realize that change takes time - there are still people in America that have never touched an I-phone and it has been around 10 years. There should be a phase in period. I know I am still not "Used to" Gay Marriage - because the "Traditions" are still being developed. I have not been to a Gay Wedding.
I have no idea how rude or gracious this lady was when she refused.
If she really cringes at the idea of making flowers for a gay wedding and having to be around many Gay people at the same time she should be allowed to say NO. She was outside of her comfort zone, probably the first time she had even considered the possibility. She shouldn't have to risk her mental health to do this wedding.
If she refused to sell Yellow Roses because of a bad memory with Yellow Roses, would you want to force her to sell Yellow Roses?
I don't know why she didn't inquire on the date, and then say she simply was not available. She could have kept her "beliefs" and there would have been no loss of face by the Gentlemen (I wish them the best of luck in their relationship).
Obviously she is an older person, I was taught to respect my elders, I don't criticizes people who smoke that are older than me. (I am almost 60) I have followed this rule all my life.) I grew up when women wearing pants was the issue of the Day. My grandmother NEVER wore pants.
Realize that change takes time - there are still people in America that have never touched an I-phone and it has been around 10 years. There should be a phase in period. I know I am still not "Used to" Gay Marriage - because the "Traditions" are still being developed. I have not been to a Gay Wedding.
I have no idea how rude or gracious this lady was when she refused.
2
Evidently freedom for the shop owners means the freedom to discriminate.
If your business serves the public, it serves all the public. Period.
If your business serves the public, it serves all the public. Period.
9
Well, decency and morality lost this round.
2
Not at all. It's never decent or moral to treat people like second class citizens because of the way they were born.
15
oh sure. Hobby Lobby can refuse to give female employees access to reproductive health care because they "don't believe in it on religious grounds", but the florist cannot do the same. such hypocrisy.
3
Hobby Lobby is a corporation, and corporations have a religion. Florists do not.
2
Scottilla - How do corporations have a religion? Do they go to church?
1
Even were her flower arrangements a form of "free speech", free speech protections don't enable this lady to pick and choose the consumers of her free speech (discrimination).
That would be the equivalent of getting on a soap box in a public square, then ushering away those of a certain demographic so that they may not listen to you. That's not how it works in a free world.
You can't sell your cake, and have it too.
That would be the equivalent of getting on a soap box in a public square, then ushering away those of a certain demographic so that they may not listen to you. That's not how it works in a free world.
You can't sell your cake, and have it too.
20
I first read about this case almost a year ago. At that time, I thought that the florist was wrong to take the stand that she did because she ought not to discriminate against anyone because of their race, creed, or sexual orientation. I based that opinion on the idea that anyone buying something (like in a store) should be able to freely buy whatever they want. Their money was as good as anyone else's.
However, after thinking about this for several weeks, I realized she did sell flowers to these two people without any problem. What made this one event a problem was she was being asked (or commissioned) to create flower arrangements for their wedding ceremony. She was being asked, as an artist, to put something of herself into the work. Even though she was not required to be at the ceremony, her work was, indeed, very much a part of the ceremony. (She may also have been required to deliver to the wedding chapel and place the flowers, too.) I do believe this sort of involvement, which may run contrary to the artist's conscience, cannot be compelled by any court. Courts have made similar exceptions for ministers. I think the same holds true for artists.
However, after thinking about this for several weeks, I realized she did sell flowers to these two people without any problem. What made this one event a problem was she was being asked (or commissioned) to create flower arrangements for their wedding ceremony. She was being asked, as an artist, to put something of herself into the work. Even though she was not required to be at the ceremony, her work was, indeed, very much a part of the ceremony. (She may also have been required to deliver to the wedding chapel and place the flowers, too.) I do believe this sort of involvement, which may run contrary to the artist's conscience, cannot be compelled by any court. Courts have made similar exceptions for ministers. I think the same holds true for artists.
10
Nonsense. She could have just muttered expletives under her breath as she mindlessly copied the arrangements from the last wedding. Or she could gave got an assistant to do it, or could have contracted another florist to do it - "sorry I thought I was getting the flu".
2
We all have beliefs, but if we act upon them, depriving others of their fundamental human rights of freedom & the pursuit of 'happiness,' someone has to stop us—nice job WASHINGTON! Unfortunately my understanding is that the new Supreme Court nominee, Gorduch, believes religious beliefs trump constitutional rights.
3
Business owners who object to "political correctness" such as non-discriminatory interactions with their clients should then be required to prominently display a notice in their window and in their ads that they reserve the right NOT to serve non-Christians or any Christians that do not have the same personal religious beliefs as the business owner. If businesses can refuse to serve customers with no shoes/shirts by posting signs, then they can protect their religious rights by being upfront and honest that they reserve the right to choose who they are willing to do business with. Then LGBT or Muslims or Catholics or Presbyterians or Buddhists or Zoroastrians know that they need not impinge on the business owners deeply held personal Christian beliefs and shop elsewhere. Because that's what Jesus would do.
4
"Ms. Stutzman, 72, said the power of the government to crush dissent was what resonated for her in the opinion." “We should all be very, very scared,” she said. No one in America has the power to crush dissent and this case is certainly NOT an illustration of that far-fetched notion. This is about what YOU don't have the power to do, Ms. Stutzman...and what you do not have the power to do is refuse service to anyone based on the premise of having a religious difference. Yes...we should be VERY scared...scared of people like you ever getting powerful enough to change fair and nondiscriminatory rules, regulations and laws. It's you and YOUR beliefs tha should be feared.
12
It strikes me as ironic that almost a year to the week of Antonin Scalia's death, Progressives celebrate and echo the words of Scalia from Employment vs Smith:
1.the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability'.
2.an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ … permit[s] him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself.’
Who knew progressives and Scalia had so much in common! Even in our divisive political culture, laws can bring us together.
1.the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability'.
2.an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ … permit[s] him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself.’
Who knew progressives and Scalia had so much in common! Even in our divisive political culture, laws can bring us together.
1
Imagine if a neo-Nazi couple asked a Jewish-owned flower shop to provide flowers and they refused on religious grounds. I doubt the legal outcome would be the same. Never doubt that every law passed and enforced legislates morality--the question will always be, "Whose morality and why?"
15
However...Neo-Nazism, like the KKK, is a classified hate group by the Southern Poverty Law, and they are not subject to the same anti-discrimination rights. A case like that would have to be approached completely differently and really doesn't compare.
6
They should be served, same as everyone else.
2
I think the distinction is that Nazism is a system of beliefs, not an immutable characteristic such race, gender or sexual orientation. But I tend to agree that courts will often make arguments to support foregone conclusions. To be honest, I'm not sure that's always a bad thing.
1
Ms. Stutzman's right to dissent or to her religious beliefs is not threatened. She is still free to disagree; she is still free to believe that her faith teaches that same-sex marriage is wrong. But if she's in the business of selling flower arrangements she makes, she can't refuse to sell to people who don't agree with her. Period.
45
But she should have the right! No one should be forced to earn money they don't want!
1
I am an atheist, yet I don't agree with the ruling. She operates a private business and should have to right to refuse service to whoever she chooses. To me, her choice was rather irrational in the sense of free market economics, but a choice she should have the right to make. In a grand scheme of things, free market punishes this sort of irrational behavior and will ensure this form of discrimination do not become systemic.
9
You mean like it was in the south? It took laws to change a systemic system of discrimination that was rooted in private enterprise.
5
This isn't just a slippery slope, it is a greased pole.
Granting official credibility to anyone's claims regarding what God purportedly thinks about anything opens the lid to Pandora's Box.
Granting official credibility to anyone's claims regarding what God purportedly thinks about anything opens the lid to Pandora's Box.
1
I would argue that discrimination you are pointing out stemmed from Jim Crow and government sanctioned racism rather than private enterprise. Same sex marriages are perfectly legal in Washington, so I would think everyone agrees that institutionalized discrimination is not taking place there. Washington is not going down a slippery slop of religious zealotry just because one lady feels that Jesus don't want her to serve gays.
2
Hard to imagine any florist, baker, printer, caterer believing what they do marries a couple. Alas, her lawyer says she objects, claiming to be an "artist."
A rose by any other name . . . Lo and behold, she remains an "artist" of another type. The court did recognized that.
A rose by any other name . . . Lo and behold, she remains an "artist" of another type. The court did recognized that.
2
Love wins.
Hate and discrimination lose, Baronelle.
In these United States, the Constitution and its Amendments are our most sacred governing documents. Read them.
Hate and discrimination lose, Baronelle.
In these United States, the Constitution and its Amendments are our most sacred governing documents. Read them.
4
Seems like hate won - - why file a law suit to force someone to agree with you.
2
I wonder how this case would have been resolved in States or Federal Court where RFRA laws exist or in states where protected class statutes don't exist.
Whatever it may be, the law is the law, you abide by it. Guess Stultzman can remove wedding flower services from her store or offer it privately, advertising to Churches, or other groups directly.
Whatever it may be, the law is the law, you abide by it. Guess Stultzman can remove wedding flower services from her store or offer it privately, advertising to Churches, or other groups directly.
This florist said we should be scared. She right but for the wrong reason. She and others who share her thinking is what is scary. If she continues to refuse flowers for a Gay Wedding she should place a prominent sign in her shops window announcing her beliefs. Let her customers decide if they want to do business with her.
5
To Christians who interpret marriage vows before the Christian God as a metaphor explaining the relationship between Jesus Christ and His church, the sacredness of the union is very meaningful. Perceiving that you as a devout Christian are participating in its perversion is horrifying. The source of the current tension is that the authorities of the church and the state are intertwined in the marriage institution. What we need is a divorce between church and state on this issue. Let the state control its marriage contracts, which any two parties can enter. Let the church control its marriage covenants based on its moral and religious values. Thus, if your service is of a religious nature, a vendor should be free to decline if your service violates their conscience. If you have a state-sponsored service there should be no discrimination. The question is - will that be good enough for those who insist on "marriage equality?"
7
Brian,
I wasn't going to comment on this again-- I usually limit myself to two. But your opinion is so peculiar I can't help myself.
First, the State does control its marriage contracts, and there's no requirement for a religious ceremony. All marriages are "state-sponsored".
But you seem to be saying that if there *is* a religious ceremony, the florist should be able to discriminate. Isn't that by definition religious discrimination?
I wasn't going to comment on this again-- I usually limit myself to two. But your opinion is so peculiar I can't help myself.
First, the State does control its marriage contracts, and there's no requirement for a religious ceremony. All marriages are "state-sponsored".
But you seem to be saying that if there *is* a religious ceremony, the florist should be able to discriminate. Isn't that by definition religious discrimination?
7
A flower shop is not a religious institution though. People should keep it simple by just selling flowers to anyone that wants them. But, I do agree that religious marriage should be different than a state sanctioned one.
Brian - In most states a religious marriage ceremony still requires a state marriage license. If you don't have a state license, you're not married as far as the state is concerned, so you will have no rights and protections under the law as a married couple. And may states require all religious marriages to also have a state license.
You're also missing an important point -- Ms. Stutzman owns a florist shop, it's not a church or any other religious house of worship. She needs to conduct business accordingly obeying all laws.
You're also missing an important point -- Ms. Stutzman owns a florist shop, it's not a church or any other religious house of worship. She needs to conduct business accordingly obeying all laws.
3
Another disgusting example of how bigots hide under their "religious beliefs!
8
Expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor for this florist. Especially after President Trump gets his nominee confirmed even if Mitch has to use the nuclear option. And as the older left-leaning liberal justices retire and are replaced with more Scalia type justices expect homosexuals and their ilk to be pushed back once again into the closet and the Stonewall Inn plowed over for a Bakery which does not bake for homosexual activities.
@John Smith - The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of gay marriage as a civil right. And in a November 2016 interview on 60 Minutes, 45 himself stated that the matter is settled, it's law, and he's fine with it. He also said he sees no reason why the SCOTUS would have to revisit the issue.
1
lotusflower0 - It's true that 45 seems OK with same sex marriage but his SCOTUS pick doesn't seem to be.
I, too, am firmly on the side of gay rights and marriage equality but also on the side of personal freedom.
I don't normally think of florists as artists participating in weddings, but her argument is somewhat persuasive. I have more sympathy for wedding photographers and others, who are very much engaged in the wedding proceedings. I worry that they are being compelled to participate when gay marriage violates their religious/moral beliefs.
I don't normally think of florists as artists participating in weddings, but her argument is somewhat persuasive. I have more sympathy for wedding photographers and others, who are very much engaged in the wedding proceedings. I worry that they are being compelled to participate when gay marriage violates their religious/moral beliefs.
3
Nonsense.
2
@ Justin - Baloney. No one is forcing Ms Stutzman to get married to another woman, perform a marriage of a gay couple, or witness their marriage, etc. She is able to freely believe and attend the church of her choice in her own private life. But when she's conducting a business open to the public, then she has to sell flowers to anyone who can pay for the service, period.
8
So would you feel the same if this was an interracial couple and the florist's religion forbade that? Or a second marriage, which in some religions is adultery? Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
3
This is a sign on a broken Article III and will and should be overturned as counter to the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling already. Judges regularly twist the laws to create their own laws and this is ANOTHER example of America overtaking the United States.
1
Well, there you go, thinking that god is on your side just because you say so. Unchristian acts are not sanctioned in the Bible no matter how much you want them to be. Jesus preached, "...love your neighbor as you do yourself," not withhold your love to prove what a great Christian you are. So maybe her faith will comfort her now and help her pay these big legal bills.
8
Knowing that they were gay and were living together, why did the florist sell them flowers before their wedding? Surely her so-called "Christian" faith did not approve of people living together before marriage, and certainly not a same-sex couple.
36
Good point. I'd love to know if she refuses to do flowers for people who are divorce and remarrying, the bible takes a pretty hard line on divorce.
4
As for her argument about her "artistry," this florist better not own any garments, music, writings, food products, or furniture produced by the creative efforts and innovation of gay folks. That would be hypocritical.
32
Nothing Jesus said or did justifies discrimination against people whose morality you disagree with.
To claim a right to observe a personal religious belief that has no basis in what your religion actually teaches opens the door to a universal "freedom of conscience" that would overthrow the rule of law.
To claim a right to observe a personal religious belief that has no basis in what your religion actually teaches opens the door to a universal "freedom of conscience" that would overthrow the rule of law.
40
If there was a problem at this florist's store, she could dial 911 and police, ambulance attendants and/or firefighters would race to help. Her shop is no doubt hooked up to various grids maintained by taxpayers, for water, power, sewer and trash removal. Customers get to her shop over roads, bridges, tunnels, etc., all built and maintained by those same taxpayers. Customers come to her store because the taxpayers provided for police patrols, street cleaning and lighting. If a customer fails to pay the florist, she can take the matter to court. In short, this florist gets a lot of benefits from the social compact ... yet wants the right to refuse service to peaceful, law-abiding potential customers. Does that strike anyone as fair?
119
Did not know that because you avail yourself of local plumbing, you surrender your right to religious freedom. But then I've maintained that genuine rights are going down the toilet, being replaced by the faux kind.
JGrondelski - You confuse the right to believe in and practice your own religion personally, with trampling on someone else's civil rights. The florist is a public business owner, and under the law must serve all customers equally. I would further argue that Ms. Stutzman has little understanding of the basics of own religion to boot, or she would not have found herself in this predicament.
2
JGrondelski - You can practice any religion you want, you can't force other people to live by your religion and you can't insert religion into public policy.
1
This is sick. Have these people actually read the whole bible, instead of a few books? But..this goes further than the Christian fundamentalists featured here. It involves Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and others.
Can the NYT do a series on gay discrimination by the various fundamentalist religions? We have no place in our society for these types.
Can the NYT do a series on gay discrimination by the various fundamentalist religions? We have no place in our society for these types.
3
Then she shouldn't be in business, period end of story. This whole religious belief is just nonsense if you are in business. If you are going to claim that, that get out of business!!!
5
It is absolutely 100% certain that the religious extremist and judicial activist Gorsuch would rule the opposite way.
3
The Anti-gay activists trying to push these so-called religious freedoms have no guarantee that a majority of the Supremes will support their position. They may just find themselves in a position where they've pushed and pushed and invalidated these laws nationwide as a way to use religion as a weapon to harm others.
Yes back in 2013 he wrote the Hobby Lobby Stores decision which confirms your fears . . .
1
There is a problem with the court's logic as captured in this section of the article:
"Ms. Stutzman herself, the court said, contradicted the argument that wedding flowers were a statement when she said in a deposition that providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism."
Providing flowers for a wedding may not be an endorsement of the participants' religion but it could be viewed as an endorsement of that form of union in general. While I am sympathetic to the court's opinion, I do wonder if we are trampling religious freedom unduly.
"Ms. Stutzman herself, the court said, contradicted the argument that wedding flowers were a statement when she said in a deposition that providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism."
Providing flowers for a wedding may not be an endorsement of the participants' religion but it could be viewed as an endorsement of that form of union in general. While I am sympathetic to the court's opinion, I do wonder if we are trampling religious freedom unduly.
4
A business isn't a place of worship. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
5
We are not trampling religious freedom at all, so certainly not unduly. How people use a purchased object has no bearing on the seller of that object. What "sins" others commit with what we sell is none of our business unless it breaks laws.
3
Religious freedom is the right to worship in the congregation of one's choice. It is not liberty to harass people in public over their conduct of lawful behavior.
4
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
4
The Religious Right is part of what's wrong with this country - they aren't content to be free to practice their religion and go to the church of their choice - they want to force laws on the rest of us who don't believe the same things they do. They oppose equal marriage, legal abortion, contraception, the bathroom issue, etc.and want to force "us" to buckle under to their religious beliefs! Too many of these "issues" relate to our bedrooms and our bodies. Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone!!
13
A sale is, or at least should be, a transaction between two equal partners, a seller and a buyer. A buyer has every right to decline to buy from a seller whose policies he disagrees with, else while boycotts would be illegal. Why, then, does a seller not have the same rights?
I wonder if the state of North Carolina, in concert with the businesses who lost revenue due to the boycott over the state's LGBT policy, could file a class action discrimination lawsuit against the organizations and individuals who participated in the boycott, and if so, would it get the same favorable press coverage?
I wonder if the state of North Carolina, in concert with the businesses who lost revenue due to the boycott over the state's LGBT policy, could file a class action discrimination lawsuit against the organizations and individuals who participated in the boycott, and if so, would it get the same favorable press coverage?
4
This makes no sense whatsoever. I don't think you thought this through.
2
We already tried being allowed to deny sales to people we disagreed with. It was called Jim Crow. It was called "No Jews served here." It was called, "Irish need not apply." We chose as a nation to be better than that.
12
DR - How does treating the seller and the buyer as equal partners not make sense?
1
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to force your beliefs onto others!
8
I am so glad to see this ruling. Sadly the ADF is going to milk this one for all it is worth. Next stop? SCOTUS?
1
I think one of the takeaways here is that extending the logic of the fully protected class from African Americans (religious groups did cite Christianity as the reason for why they should be allowed to segregate) does create a protected class - but, and this is important, this was a case under Washington State law, and Washington state has added lesbian and gay people to their nondiscrimination laws. This was already a protected class under the law in Washington. It remains to be seen if the logic will be extended to nation by the Supreme Court.
If it was, that would be an extraordinary protection against bigoted laws like the laws that promote certain Christian beliefs over all other beliefs, and gives holders of those beliefs license to discriminate.
If it was, that would be an extraordinary protection against bigoted laws like the laws that promote certain Christian beliefs over all other beliefs, and gives holders of those beliefs license to discriminate.
3
Say it with flowers, and send Ms. Stutzman a cactus.
12
I'm very pro LGBT rights. But what's the difference between "hate speech" (not inciting) and "love speech" Would a baker refusing to make a "aryan wedding" cake be liable for discrimination? This is a slippery slope. Boycotting, public shaming are much better remedies that suing that makes lawyers rich, and destroying a small business owner.
I can already see Milo Yiannopoulos, ordering a cake and suing some poor small business that violates his First Amendment rights.
In this case no one wins, except a few lawyers.... Sad.
I can already see Milo Yiannopoulos, ordering a cake and suing some poor small business that violates his First Amendment rights.
In this case no one wins, except a few lawyers.... Sad.
5
Being a Nazi is not a protected class. Being gay or lesbian is (in Washington State). That is the difference. It's not a slippery slope. They are different situations.
6
The difference is that Nazis are not a protected class, so you have the legal right to discriminate against them on the basis of their politics.
2
When you apply the same reasoning to the designers who say they'll refuse to dress Melania or Ivanka Trump, I'll believe that you really believe in non-discrimination. Otherwise, I'll just continue to think that you believe others shouldn't discriminate against your pet causes.
3
Being Melania or Ivanka Trump is not a protected class. Race, religion, and sexual orientation are protected classes. THAT is the difference.
If she had refused to make flowers for their wedding because they didn't pay their prior bills there would have been no problem. But she refused to make flowers for their wedding because of religious beliefs/they were gay.
If she had refused to make flowers for their wedding because they didn't pay their prior bills there would have been no problem. But she refused to make flowers for their wedding because of religious beliefs/they were gay.
5
You have a point and if a designer refused to let Melania or Ivanka into their store, they would be breaking the law and should be held accountable for that because their stores are supposed to be open to all of the public.
2
Loved the 1960's/sandwich analogy! Good call.
2
What I don't understand is why doesn't the LGBT community set up their own wedding industries? They could make a lot of $ in the process, and those who do have sincerely help beliefs might lose financially but oh well. To me, it's wrong to force someone to do something against their beliefs. Why is their sexuality more important than time honored teaching such as marriage being between one man and one woman? I stand with Baronnelle and against bullying people with political correctness.
1
that is like saying''Why don't the blacks just open their own shops--so we do not have to serve them"'
5
Before the civil rights movement gained momentum, Christians used bible passages to support segregation and discrimination against people of color. Do you think it's unfair to force a them to sell flowers for a mixed race wedding if they don't believe marriage between races is OK?
4
A business isn't a place of worship, how do you not know that?
4
The religious fundamentalist-types also attempted to use the religion canard during the Civil Rights era here in the south. It wasn't allowed to work then, against blacks, and it shouldn't be allowed to work now, against gay and lesbian people. I'm pleased to see affirmative statements, from the courts, of gay people as a protected class. It's a state of being, not a conscious choice.
5
Yes, we should all be scared, very scared--scared of "religious" bigotry. Ms. Stutzman's hateful Sky Daddy is a figment of her imagination, and figments of the imagination do not trump the Constitution of the United States.
4
A bigot is someone who is intolerant of opinions that differ than their own.
This human failing knows no barriers.
This human failing knows no barriers.
1
So if a Jewish baker receives a request to make a cake for a neo-nazi group celebrating Hitler's birthday, would the baker be forced to do so?
The opinions clearly differ and contain a noxious idea to one and a celebratory idea to the other. Would having 'Happy Birthday" stamped on the cake, without any other identifier signifying 'hate speech', preclude the baker from providing the cake? Or can the baker refuse knowing who's ordering and what's being celebrated? Just a curious thought experiment, not meant to be offensive.
I think I would stand with the intolerance of the baker.
The opinions clearly differ and contain a noxious idea to one and a celebratory idea to the other. Would having 'Happy Birthday" stamped on the cake, without any other identifier signifying 'hate speech', preclude the baker from providing the cake? Or can the baker refuse knowing who's ordering and what's being celebrated? Just a curious thought experiment, not meant to be offensive.
I think I would stand with the intolerance of the baker.
1
Matthew - Most vendors state a refusal to do any type of offensive or hateful speech, I've seen quite a few tattoo parlors do this. A vendor can refuse to provide a specific product or service, they can not refuse to provide the same product (cake, flowers etc.) to a specific person based on that person's religion, gender, ethnicity etc.
3
Whatever your intent, equating gay people with neo-nazis the way you do here is offensive, as well as a bad argument.
There is NO comparison to be drawn between people who are gay (or bi, queer, etc.) - which is an IDENTITY and does not inherently involve any harm to others - and people who choose to hold violent, bigoted political views. Gay people's existence and marriage do not by themselves harm anyone. Even people who think being gay is wrong are not themselves harmed. Neo-nazis INHERENTLY subscribe to a view that demeans and calls for violence against others. This is a viewpoint they CHOOSE to hold, knowing that it has led to the torture and deaths of millions of people, simply for who they were. Including both Jews and gay people.
It is a vile comparison. And the two classes of people you compare are not in similar positions. A Jewish baker objecting to serving neo-nazis objects to their choice to promote views that explicitly promote harming them and that have done such harm in the past. Neo-nazis are not a protected class who have suffered discrimination and violation of their civil rights. Gay people are. Granting people the right to discriminate against them in matters great or small, on the basis of one particular religion, establishes a precedent permitting denial of equal treatment at personal whim and grants legal favor to one religious view over all others.
There is NO comparison to be drawn between people who are gay (or bi, queer, etc.) - which is an IDENTITY and does not inherently involve any harm to others - and people who choose to hold violent, bigoted political views. Gay people's existence and marriage do not by themselves harm anyone. Even people who think being gay is wrong are not themselves harmed. Neo-nazis INHERENTLY subscribe to a view that demeans and calls for violence against others. This is a viewpoint they CHOOSE to hold, knowing that it has led to the torture and deaths of millions of people, simply for who they were. Including both Jews and gay people.
It is a vile comparison. And the two classes of people you compare are not in similar positions. A Jewish baker objecting to serving neo-nazis objects to their choice to promote views that explicitly promote harming them and that have done such harm in the past. Neo-nazis are not a protected class who have suffered discrimination and violation of their civil rights. Gay people are. Granting people the right to discriminate against them in matters great or small, on the basis of one particular religion, establishes a precedent permitting denial of equal treatment at personal whim and grants legal favor to one religious view over all others.
6
The court can force a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding against the baker's religious beliefs. Can the court force the baker to make a good tasting or good looking cake?
The court can force a florist to make a floral display for a gay wedding against the florist's religious beliefs. Can the court force the florist to make an attractive floral display?
Liberals can refuse to attend the inauguration. They can boycott clothing lines and restaurants. They can delay the confirmation of cabinet members. They can block streets and highways.
Certainly our liberal friends would support the right to peacefully resist this ruling.
The court can force a florist to make a floral display for a gay wedding against the florist's religious beliefs. Can the court force the florist to make an attractive floral display?
Liberals can refuse to attend the inauguration. They can boycott clothing lines and restaurants. They can delay the confirmation of cabinet members. They can block streets and highways.
Certainly our liberal friends would support the right to peacefully resist this ruling.
3
Have you ever bought wedding flowers or a wedding cake? The vendor shows you photos and you pick the type of flower or cake that you want. If the florist or baker doesn't deliver what you picked, they're violating a contract.
5
Do customers have the right to withhold payment for a nasty-tasting cake or an ugly arrangement of ragweed? You bet they do.
And please don't argue that the deliberately malevolent, self-righteous vendor deserves to be paid. You didn't seem to mind when your presidential candidate of choice stiffed hardworking tradespeople.
And please don't argue that the deliberately malevolent, self-righteous vendor deserves to be paid. You didn't seem to mind when your presidential candidate of choice stiffed hardworking tradespeople.
3
I own a small business and I can't even imagine turning away profit because someone doesn't have the same "beliefs" as me. I don't even want to know my customers beliefs. I only want to know they enjoyed what I sold them. That makes me happy.
4
Why couldn't they just get flowers from someone else?
If it's a private business, I don't see anything wrong with denying them services.
However, if it were my business, I wouldn't turn anyone down, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I really believe that Mr. Stutzman's rights should be equally protected. She shouldn't be obligated to serve them. It's sad that she chooses not to, but she shouldn't be punished legally for it.
If it's a private business, I don't see anything wrong with denying them services.
However, if it were my business, I wouldn't turn anyone down, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I really believe that Mr. Stutzman's rights should be equally protected. She shouldn't be obligated to serve them. It's sad that she chooses not to, but she shouldn't be punished legally for it.
12
oh good thinking --they should run around town ands see which shops will accept them--
1
This is a case of Public Accommodation. As a Business Owner, your door is open to all or none.
6
For the love of all that is holy and a few things that aren't, read the articles on this topic and learn a little history from the civil rights movement. While you're at it, look up the word "discrimination."
4
As firmly as I am a proponent of legal same-sex marriage, I feel a certain sympathy for the points of view of the florists and caterers in these cases, and for me this has little to do with artistic freedom, and everything with freedom of conscience.
In this particular case, the florist did not generally refuse the couple's custom because of their sexual orientation. She merely refused to facilitate a ceremony which she felt goes against something she holds sacred.
By all means, feel free to disagree with her or even choose to not patronize her store anymore, but I do not think it makes sense legally oblige people to facilitate any event that goes against their beliefs or convictions.
Of course this is merely an opinion on the topic in general. I cannot make any statement on the court's decision, and I assume their legal argumentation is sound.
In this particular case, the florist did not generally refuse the couple's custom because of their sexual orientation. She merely refused to facilitate a ceremony which she felt goes against something she holds sacred.
By all means, feel free to disagree with her or even choose to not patronize her store anymore, but I do not think it makes sense legally oblige people to facilitate any event that goes against their beliefs or convictions.
Of course this is merely an opinion on the topic in general. I cannot make any statement on the court's decision, and I assume their legal argumentation is sound.
2
It's a florist, you know, retail. One of their products is wedding flowers. Either they sell them to everyone or don't sell the product and stick to fresh flowers/arrangements. You'll notice Ms. Stutzman had no problem taking money from the two gay gentlemen over the past several years for other floral products. Sorry, this is straight up discrimination.
4
Dissent is not the same as discrimination. No one is preventing the florist from speaking; by now we all know how she feels.
5
I can't believe that as ridiculous as this issue is, this bigot is now going to take up the Supreme Court's time with it.
On the other hand, if Trump gets his way and his nominee, she may win, another blow to America's rapidly crumbling fairness and inclusiveness.
On the other hand, if Trump gets his way and his nominee, she may win, another blow to America's rapidly crumbling fairness and inclusiveness.
1
Of course the state can "crush dissent" if that dissent means breaking the law. Living in America, we implicitly accept the rule of a fair and reasonable law. If you break it the state can and will force you to act otherwise. That is how we have a just society. The florist did have the opportunity to challenge the "powerful state" in the courts, where she decisively lost. She must accept the ruling and stop whining.
6
It has occurred to me that the real issue and significance here is not a Supreme Court overruling religious beliefs.
It is the issue of one same-sex people desire to disrespect someone else' religious belief and go elsewhere for their needs, in favor of making a case of "I Will Show Them".
Therefore, this 'same-sex' couple have earned my unmitigated, and equal disrespect, same they have shown toward others.
It is the issue of one same-sex people desire to disrespect someone else' religious belief and go elsewhere for their needs, in favor of making a case of "I Will Show Them".
Therefore, this 'same-sex' couple have earned my unmitigated, and equal disrespect, same they have shown toward others.
1
When you create a business to serve the general public, then that is what you should do.
"Ms. Stutzman herself, the court said, contradicted the argument that wedding flowers were a statement when she said in a deposition that providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism."
A Muslim couple or an atheist couple would both have the right to sue for discrimination if she had also denied service. It is exposing the inequality that exists. Not to mention, a Christian following the bible itself would understand better that letting the Romans live as they do, and you do your own thing as "He" commands, does not involve denying others based on your approval.
The point here is to show there is a standard required if you are to run a public business
"Ms. Stutzman herself, the court said, contradicted the argument that wedding flowers were a statement when she said in a deposition that providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism."
A Muslim couple or an atheist couple would both have the right to sue for discrimination if she had also denied service. It is exposing the inequality that exists. Not to mention, a Christian following the bible itself would understand better that letting the Romans live as they do, and you do your own thing as "He" commands, does not involve denying others based on your approval.
The point here is to show there is a standard required if you are to run a public business
2
Did you feel that way about African Americans fighting for civil rights in the face of Christians that felt the bible made segregation OK?
3
Brian - Thank you for your clear, concise and pertinent posts.
The argument that the florist is making amounts to the following:
"I will sell you flowers in general (given that she has a history of selling flowers to these same two,people in the past), but I reserve the right to not sell flowers to YOU (a specific customer) if they are to be used for a specific purpose that I do not approve of."
Aside from the illegality of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation of the customer, the florist is taking upon herself the right to decide if the end use of the flowers meets with her approval.
How about buying the flowers to burn them? Or to bury them? Why should the florist have any say as to how the flowers are used, so long as the florist gets paid for the goods and services? What business is it of the florist to even inquire as to the end use? If told about the end use, what gives the florist the right to decide that the end use does or does not meet with his or he approval?
When you are in the business of providing a good or a service, you can set the terms as regards price, time and place of delivery and what is to be provided. What the buyer does with the bought and paid for goods and services is none of the vendor's business.
"I will sell you flowers in general (given that she has a history of selling flowers to these same two,people in the past), but I reserve the right to not sell flowers to YOU (a specific customer) if they are to be used for a specific purpose that I do not approve of."
Aside from the illegality of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation of the customer, the florist is taking upon herself the right to decide if the end use of the flowers meets with her approval.
How about buying the flowers to burn them? Or to bury them? Why should the florist have any say as to how the flowers are used, so long as the florist gets paid for the goods and services? What business is it of the florist to even inquire as to the end use? If told about the end use, what gives the florist the right to decide that the end use does or does not meet with his or he approval?
When you are in the business of providing a good or a service, you can set the terms as regards price, time and place of delivery and what is to be provided. What the buyer does with the bought and paid for goods and services is none of the vendor's business.
11
You neglect to mention her faith, which according the article was her the reason she denied the flowers for the wedding. She could sell flowers to the men for arrangements, etc., but felt that to sell them flowers for their wedding was in conflict with her faith. A line she could not cross, according the the article.
The merits of this case were to my mind very weak, a business, open to the public, she does not have the right to deny services, based on sexual orientation, color, etc.
Can the same be said of a person who demands a transgender operation from a Catholic hospital? He was denied. I believe, that case will be argued in court too.
Who should win on this matter? Religious freedom, or civil liberty?
The merits of this case were to my mind very weak, a business, open to the public, she does not have the right to deny services, based on sexual orientation, color, etc.
Can the same be said of a person who demands a transgender operation from a Catholic hospital? He was denied. I believe, that case will be argued in court too.
Who should win on this matter? Religious freedom, or civil liberty?
Debbie - Catholic hospitals don't do transgender surgeries period. You can't force a business to provide a specific service that isn't on their list of products. I can't go to a salon that only does hair color and force them to give me a haircut.
1
If Ms. Stutzman wanted to argue that her artistic expression was threatened, she should not have muddled her argument by including the religious freedom issue. The "artistic expression" argument is a novel one in this context, I think, and it would have been interesting to have the court rule on that argument as a defense for discrimination. But, as soon as religion is brought into it, all these suits fail. Religious belief simply isn't a defense against discrimination.
36
Exactly. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs and everything to do with the courts ruling that citizens can be forced to create bespoke products for customers, which is different that refusing 'service', e.g. you can buy a cake out of the display case, but I refuse to make a cake for you with the inscription "All Hail The KKK!".
It's all or nothing, people.
It's all or nothing, people.
1
OK so, if you are required to "speak" through your art in support of gay marriage, and a religious requirement preventing your support is "no defense" then what about very specific religious "speech" such as sermons and prayer? You see? The very content of a religious practice cannot now be protected from governmental coercion if it tends to harm a protected class. This decision is a bold statement by The State. It asserts domination of secular rules over religious practice. Any thought or belief that cannot be "lived" is no belief at all. You may think what you like, says The State, but you cannot actualize your faith. Will The State place agents into pulpits to monitor preachers? "Each to his own" seems to work only one way.
Wow, that's pretty tortured. Do you not realize the difference between a business and a religious institution?
5
This is America, not a religious kingdom like Saudi Arabia. If the lady wants to discriminate on religious grounds then she should get a passport and look for another like minded country in which to live and sell her flowers.
5
I'll play stupid. If “sexual orientation is a protected class — just like race, just like religion.” then why is the religious expression (the beliefs) of the florist not permitted under the law (according to the ruling)?
2
Playing stupid, are you? You're doing a mighty fine job of it.
3
It is in the sense that you cannot be publicly discriminated against for any of those attributes. She operates in the public sphere and as such, will be confronted with things that disagree with her beliefs. Encountering opposition in public is NOT reverse discrimination. Owning a business that serves the public means that you cannot discriminate against your customers, not that your customers are required to align with your beliefs.
7
Because she's admittedly picking and choosing when and against whom she wants to apply her religious beliefs.
"Ms. Stutzman herself, the court said, contradicted the argument that wedding flowers were a statement when she said in a deposition that providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism."
"Ms. Stutzman herself, the court said, contradicted the argument that wedding flowers were a statement when she said in a deposition that providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism."
7
Ugh. As a gay man, I'm not sure if this is a fight we should be having now. Maybe it's some kind of internalized homophobia talking, but I think that, after the inroads we've made, we need a breather, especially when it comes to the judiciary.
Also not sure that this is an issue SCOTUS should take up now? If a conservative replaces Scalia, the odds of a ruling favorable to gay people will be slashed.
Also not sure that this is an issue SCOTUS should take up now? If a conservative replaces Scalia, the odds of a ruling favorable to gay people will be slashed.
This fight has been in the works for years, it's not something recent.
1
SCOTUS can simply decline to hear the case, leaving the Washington State Court decision intact.
1
The law on public accomodations is clear.
If these 'religious freedom' cases go forward and receive sign-off from the Supreme Court, then what will keep business owners from refusing to serve African-Americans - or Jews - or anyone else they claim they object to on religious grounds?
Back-door Jim Crow?
I thought this was America.
If these 'religious freedom' cases go forward and receive sign-off from the Supreme Court, then what will keep business owners from refusing to serve African-Americans - or Jews - or anyone else they claim they object to on religious grounds?
Back-door Jim Crow?
I thought this was America.
8
If she doesn't want to sell flowers for a particular kind of wedding that is her right. It just means she shouldn't sell flowers for any kind of wedding. She doesn't get to pick and choose which weddings suit her, as that process of choosing one over the other is the very definition of discrimination, which is illegal in this country.
73
Ms. Stutzman said "We should all be very, very scared."
She's right. Scared of religious bigots who just don't understand the simple precept that “People should also never use their personal religious beliefs as a free pass to violate the law or the basic civil rights of others.”
She's right. Scared of religious bigots who just don't understand the simple precept that “People should also never use their personal religious beliefs as a free pass to violate the law or the basic civil rights of others.”
40
Under the rubric of "religious belief," Christians are demanding special rights and status. In the Hobby Lobby case, the business's owners stopped offering health insurance that reimbursed employees for contraception because it was "against their religious beliefs" (with the Supreme Court contradicting its own decision in Citizens United that a corporation was a separate person, not an extension of the owners). Imagine you get a new job with a company run by a Jehovah's Witness and he insists that his employees' insurance not cover transfusions based on his religious beliefs. Or your boss is a Christian Scientist and his only healthcare policy is reimbursement for trips to a Christian Science Reading Room. Or perhaps you work for a boss who believes in faith healing and doesn't offer medical insurance at all.
Religious institutions are given special treatment greater than any other group in our society. Their institutions pay no taxes, even though they can draw on services (like Firefighters, Police, EMTs, utilities) that the rest of us are forced to subsidize from our own taxes. Most states give exemptions to a variety of safety laws and regulations. In most states, for example, "Christian" day care centers are exempt from all of the safety regulations that secular centers must comply with. Even when a child dies as a result, secular owners are punished, but not Christians.
Religious institutions are given special treatment greater than any other group in our society. Their institutions pay no taxes, even though they can draw on services (like Firefighters, Police, EMTs, utilities) that the rest of us are forced to subsidize from our own taxes. Most states give exemptions to a variety of safety laws and regulations. In most states, for example, "Christian" day care centers are exempt from all of the safety regulations that secular centers must comply with. Even when a child dies as a result, secular owners are punished, but not Christians.
73
And Trump just nominated a judge who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby's ludicrous claims of risk of postmortal punishment by God to Merrick Garland's seat on the Supreme Court.
3
Ms. Stutzman and Waggoner seem to feel it is o.k. to cherry pick through the Bible in order to practice their religious bigotry.
I am sick of the religious stupidity that exists, homosexuality has been with us forever and the MAN, not god, who wrote Leviticus eons ago was an obvious bigot.
Do Stutzman and Waggoner also believe it is ok to sell your children into slavery? Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
Do they also think it o.k. to murder those that work on Sunday?
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doth work therein shall be put to death.
Of course not, they just want to practice their bigotry in selective ways. As I said, I am sick of the stupid religious bigotry practiced by so many.
I am sick of the religious stupidity that exists, homosexuality has been with us forever and the MAN, not god, who wrote Leviticus eons ago was an obvious bigot.
Do Stutzman and Waggoner also believe it is ok to sell your children into slavery? Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
Do they also think it o.k. to murder those that work on Sunday?
Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doth work therein shall be put to death.
Of course not, they just want to practice their bigotry in selective ways. As I said, I am sick of the stupid religious bigotry practiced by so many.
94
Just look at her face she just loves her 15 min of hate, preacher her hated of fellow, something she should be proud of
These people act like gay sex is against one of the ten commandments, I think If Jesus every came back he would be sicken to see what if faith as turn into, so Why are religious people so hateful
She know they where gay all along and took their money, I hope she loses her business over this
Time to tax all religion and cults, they serve NO useful purpose
These people act like gay sex is against one of the ten commandments, I think If Jesus every came back he would be sicken to see what if faith as turn into, so Why are religious people so hateful
She know they where gay all along and took their money, I hope she loses her business over this
Time to tax all religion and cults, they serve NO useful purpose
24
No ma'am... "We should all be very scared" if the court had decided in YOUR favor. All citizens of this country must be treated equally under the law... no matter what your particular religious beliefs happen to be.
44
Where is this court when Muslim cabbies refuse contracted rides with blind patrons due to their service dogs?
12
When did this happen?
1
Courts are the end point. Start with the cab company and go from there.
Thank you for that question as it was a situation unknown to me. I am unable to find a court case on the issue - can you provide a citation?
I did find articles about Muslim cabbies refusing to transport passengers with dogs in Minneapolis-St. Paul. It seems the taxi commission is pulling their livery license for 30 days if the driver refuses. Good for the commission - the cabbies need to abide by the law.
As for your initial question, "Where is this court...?" It's in Washington state and has no jurisdiction in Minnesota.
I did find articles about Muslim cabbies refusing to transport passengers with dogs in Minneapolis-St. Paul. It seems the taxi commission is pulling their livery license for 30 days if the driver refuses. Good for the commission - the cabbies need to abide by the law.
As for your initial question, "Where is this court...?" It's in Washington state and has no jurisdiction in Minnesota.
6
It will be interesting to see how this decision plays out here in Louisiana. Small business owners discriminate against their customers on a regular basis. So far I have seen that they have a habit of over charging for their services or will say something isn't available, etc. They find a way to tell you that you aren't welcome.
This is a town that virtually shut down when that internet charlatan predicted that the rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. The streets were deserted, there were few people in the stores. It was a Saturday. The streets should have been full of traffic. It was like 6:00 o'clock in the morning on Christmas. Only a few atheists and heathens were on the road.
This is a town that virtually shut down when that internet charlatan predicted that the rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. The streets were deserted, there were few people in the stores. It was a Saturday. The streets should have been full of traffic. It was like 6:00 o'clock in the morning on Christmas. Only a few atheists and heathens were on the road.
14
Religion my foot. Florist lady crossed a line alright; she should be ashamed of herself.
27
If a business is there to serve the public, then there can be no discrimination for reasons of religious belief. Either you serve all who come into your establishment or you close your shop. Your free exercise of religion stays in your house, or in your place of worship, and not at your place of business.
31
This is an interesting case and I'm sorry that the details have been lost in the scuffle. I'm firmly on the side of gay rights and marriage equality but I'm also on the side of personal freedom.
In this case the owner of the ship refused to create floral arrangements for the couple's wedding. This is a very different thing from "refusing to sell them flowers." To create a floral arrangement is a commissioned art work. I believe that all artists should have the right to refuse a commission for whatever reason they choose.
In this case the owner of the ship refused to create floral arrangements for the couple's wedding. This is a very different thing from "refusing to sell them flowers." To create a floral arrangement is a commissioned art work. I believe that all artists should have the right to refuse a commission for whatever reason they choose.
46
By the same argument, the counter worker at my local Subway is a Sandwich Artist.
If the Christian florist can, without any conflict of conscience, create flower arrangements for religious ceremonies (which, after all, is what they are insisting a wedding is) for couples of different religious beliefs than her own, then her setting same-sex weddings into a forbidden class is plainly not religiously based. Whatever tolerance expanding exercises she worked at that eventually enabled her to support state-sanctioned godless nuptials for atheists should work just fine to get her comfortable with selling flower arrangements for same-sex weddings.
If the Christian florist can, without any conflict of conscience, create flower arrangements for religious ceremonies (which, after all, is what they are insisting a wedding is) for couples of different religious beliefs than her own, then her setting same-sex weddings into a forbidden class is plainly not religiously based. Whatever tolerance expanding exercises she worked at that eventually enabled her to support state-sanctioned godless nuptials for atheists should work just fine to get her comfortable with selling flower arrangements for same-sex weddings.
3
But she had already been selling them floral arrangements. It was the wedding that she refused to do.
Nope, it's commerce and if you have a business that serves the public, you have to serve all of the public. This has been covered over and over again. I fail to see why people can not comprehend this.
5
Yes, we should all be very, very scared Ms. Stutzman. Scared that we live in a world full of people like you.
As the court said, this isn't about flowers. Should grocery stores be allowed to refuse food to people based on their race / religion? If the government prevents this, are they "crushing dissent"?
Wake up.
As the court said, this isn't about flowers. Should grocery stores be allowed to refuse food to people based on their race / religion? If the government prevents this, are they "crushing dissent"?
Wake up.
139
It is certainly true that the kidney bean display at the local Piggly Wiggly is an artistic expression of the highest caliber, so, check! Grocery presentation and sales is obviously artistic expression!
/s
/s
1
Don't want to be in a gay wedding, then don't be in one.
Don't want to be in business, then don't be in one.
She can make flowers as a volunteer for her church.
Nothing requires her to be a florist.
But if she's a florist, she should be a florist for everyone.
I cannot even believe we are still this brain dead.
Don't want to be in business, then don't be in one.
She can make flowers as a volunteer for her church.
Nothing requires her to be a florist.
But if she's a florist, she should be a florist for everyone.
I cannot even believe we are still this brain dead.
147
I'd go one further. If she wants to be a "floral arrangement artist", she can meet with clients individually in an office to discuss each "commission", only agreeing to a commission where here artistic muse converges with the clients' goals, and of course where she can work it into her busy schedule. Real artists - and contractors for that matter - meet with and filter each customer with whom they contract all the time based on complex and even flighty standards.
What they don't do is open a retail shop on a business street purporting to sell a commodity. Operating a shopfront involves engaging in a social contract.
What they don't do is open a retail shop on a business street purporting to sell a commodity. Operating a shopfront involves engaging in a social contract.
4
But you seem perfectly fine with *forcing* her to take part in a same-sex wedding ceremony.
Sentinel - The florist doesn't attend the ceremony, she has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Did you notice that this supposedly Christian woman doesn't seem to discriminate against couples who have been married and divorced? The bible comes out pretty strongly against divorce.
Did you notice that this supposedly Christian woman doesn't seem to discriminate against couples who have been married and divorced? The bible comes out pretty strongly against divorce.
4
I understand the law and yes the florist appears to have discriminated against the couple, but my question is, why on earth would you want to patronize someone's business who behaved like that? I am sure there are any number of florists who would have welcomed the order and done a wonderful job.
23
The article clearly stated that she had sold them flowers in the past. So, why did they patronize this business for their wedding? History.
I am sure they have never gone back.
I am sure they have never gone back.
2
They had patronized her business for years. They already had a business relationship.
3
This is an issue for people who live in smaller, rural areas where there may not be many (or any) other service providers. It's great to tell people to patronize another business, but that is only a feasible option in some parts of the country.
4
Fair enough.
So if a Muslim owned limo service similarly refused to accept a job at a gay wedding would they also be 'forced ' to accept the job?
Of course not.
What this really is is an assault on Judeo Christian values.
So if a Muslim owned limo service similarly refused to accept a job at a gay wedding would they also be 'forced ' to accept the job?
Of course not.
What this really is is an assault on Judeo Christian values.
17
No Name,
Of course *yes*-- cases with Muslim taxi drivers have been decided the same way-- you can't discriminate on the basis of your religious beliefs; if you are in the business you serve whoever requests your service.
Of course *yes*-- cases with Muslim taxi drivers have been decided the same way-- you can't discriminate on the basis of your religious beliefs; if you are in the business you serve whoever requests your service.
32
There was a controversy in Washington DC a few years ago where the Muslim cab drivers refused to transport anyone who had any alcohol beverage with them, like bottles of wine, etc.
4
Of course not? What world are you living in? Of course they would.
And, BTW, here's a newsflash: American Muslims are more likely to support gay marriage than evangelical Christians.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su
And, BTW, here's a newsflash: American Muslims are more likely to support gay marriage than evangelical Christians.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su
4
The thing people forget time and again is that it's the business, not the person, that has the obligation to not discriminate. The business, even in a sole proprietorship, is a separate legal entity. Thus, a person who has religious objections can choose not to work for that business entity (preserving the free exercise of religion), but the business cannot choose to discriminate.
146
Perfectly stated!
2
Thank you for this concise and clear description. I struggle with this issue as I look at it from all sides - the buyer who shouldn't be discriminated against on any grounds and the service provider who doesn't want to be intimately connected with something they are morally against. However, you're absolutely right, one must separate the person from the business. A person has choice over who they wish to associate with, but a business has no such choice and cannot for the protection of individuals. Similarly, a fashion designer may say they don't want to design for a specific First Lady whom they don't like, but a fashion house or store can't legally refuse to sell to her.
6
Perfectly stated except that is completely untrue. A sole proprietorship is not a separate entity. Business Organizations 101. A partnership, yes, a corporation, yes. But a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity.
So now the judicial system is going to force someone to create something against her will. This story neglects to mention that the flower shop owners gave this couple a list of alternative flower shops, meaning there was no injury to speak of.
14
The same argument was made about separate drinking fountains, restaurant counters, and bus seats. The injury was the discrimination, not the lack of flowers.
5
"Separate but equal?" We've been through that. Either a business is an extension of its owners (violating Citizens United, which says that the business is a "person" separate from its owners and stockholders), or it isn't. The Hobby Lobby decision is a contradiction of that, since it is the owners' beliefs that were upheld. Nobody testified to Hobby Lobby itself ever sitting in a pew. The judicial system forces all of us to support policies we object to. I am not Christian, yet the government gives some of my tax money to Christian organizations against my will (and the Constitution's) & under Betsy DeVos, Christian special treatment will grow.
I object to paying taxes so a tax-exempt church or synagogue or mosque can call the Fire Department if they catch fire. They are given an exemption the rest of us aren't.If the church down the street from me catches fire, I don't want to see the minister calling "my" fire department. Let him drop to his knees and pray to his god for rain - or pay taxes to support the fire department as I am required to do.
Should Quaker pacifists be allowed to withhold the portion of their tax that goes to the military because it violates their religious belief? If you beat your child because she won't stop crying, it is child abuse - unless you claim religious beliefs & say you were instructed by your minister to "beat the demon" out of the child.
Christians aren't talking about religious beliefs, but religious special treatment & privileges.
I object to paying taxes so a tax-exempt church or synagogue or mosque can call the Fire Department if they catch fire. They are given an exemption the rest of us aren't.If the church down the street from me catches fire, I don't want to see the minister calling "my" fire department. Let him drop to his knees and pray to his god for rain - or pay taxes to support the fire department as I am required to do.
Should Quaker pacifists be allowed to withhold the portion of their tax that goes to the military because it violates their religious belief? If you beat your child because she won't stop crying, it is child abuse - unless you claim religious beliefs & say you were instructed by your minister to "beat the demon" out of the child.
Christians aren't talking about religious beliefs, but religious special treatment & privileges.
2
Had the flower shop not dealt with them so willingly in the past, they wouldn't have set themselves up for this with blatant discrimination on religious grounds. It's against the law, not an attack of religion.
1
Religion was once used to provide support for slavery. Just as then, the reasons provided by the flower shop owner do not hold up under close scrutiny.
80
Fake news alert. Religion was never used to support slavery. Declaring that Africans were not "persons" was the reason for slavery. See Plessy v. Ferguson. Identical, in fact, to the ruling in Roe v. Wade declaring that the unborn were not "persons".
"Religious Liberty" bills are still being proposed in many states including my own, Georgia. These need to be stopped but the narrative keeps focusing on the one example of serving gay weddings. These bills have the potential to enable MUCH more discrimination than that. For instance, I could refuse service to any other religion (e.g. Jews, Muslims, etc.) if I interpret my beliefs to forbid interacting with people outside my religion (e.g. exactly like the sandwich example stated by the justices). The potential for broad discrimination under these bills is huge. The narrative against them must expand to show their true detrimental potential ... serving gay marriages is just one example of many potential injustices.
48
That wholesale discrimination against 'non-believers' already occurs in my town in south Louisiana. They just want the right to tell people they aren't welcome. It's motivated by the religious obligation to proselytize their faith.
14
There are those who write that shop owners should be free to do business, or not, with anyone they chose.
But what about obligation of the business person? If you are unwilling to serve all based on your belief structure than are you obligated, maybe even required by your religion, to chose a different business or line of work where your religious beliefs aren't at risk of being confronted rather than world accommodating your beliefs. Where is the personal responsibility of the shop owner? No one forced them into their line of business.
But what about obligation of the business person? If you are unwilling to serve all based on your belief structure than are you obligated, maybe even required by your religion, to chose a different business or line of work where your religious beliefs aren't at risk of being confronted rather than world accommodating your beliefs. Where is the personal responsibility of the shop owner? No one forced them into their line of business.
31
The cherry on top of this 9-0 Washington State rebuke to unacceptable bigotry would be if the SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal.
37
Or even if they *did* hear the appeal, they are at 8 members, so they would be (presumably) a tie- which would not be enough to overturn the state SC ruling. And WHY is SCOTUS only at 8 members??? Oh yea oh yea.
2
Or if they did and the current 4-4 split left the lower court decision to stand, which is how the system works. They'd be badly advised to go to SCOTUS
1
Number one rule of Life: Mind your own business. I demand freedom FROM " religion " .
42
I love you, Washington. See you very soon!!!
11
The State of Washington has a civil rights provision protecting individuals based on sexual orientation. In Washington, discriminating against gays is just as wrong as discriminating against any minority. Because the people of Washington have passed this law and legally support the LGBT community, there was never any question who would win this case. Federal law provides no such protection to the LGBT community. And most states follow the feds. Winning this case outside of Washington is a long shot. Clearly, some folks in Seattle have been working hard for this day. And this, indeed, is their day.
18
If this exact same case had happened in North Dakota, it would have turned out much different. The ND Legislature just turned down a bill banning discrimination against LGBT for the fifth time.
5
With your permission, I'd like to claim it as my day as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
2
V.D, That is a pitiful comment, not yours, the ND legislature's.
2
Bravo Bob Ferguson! Another blow to racism, discrimination and hate in this country.
37
It's pretty simple: if you are in a business that offers goods or services to the "public", you are required to offer them to all of us.
55
Not quite. I'm under no obligation to sell flowers to someone whose credit card is declined nor am I obligated to sell flowers to someone who once robbed the store. I can refuse to sell to individuals provided that I have a good, business-related reason that does NOT include them being part of a protected class such as gays, members of a religion or race I don't like, etc.
Religious bigotry is blinding. So called Christians who condemn homosexuality do so based on a selective, prejudiced reading of the Bible, used to justify their prejudice. And then there is that pesky thing called the Constitution that guarantees not just freedom of religion but also freedom FROM religion.
52
"Unique artistic express" crafted in "petal, leaf and loam"
An eloquently expressed sentiment to be sure, but ultimately unconvincing to the court. When one's form of artistic expression is placed into the ordinary stream of commerce, ostensibly for sale to all, than it should be exactly that, for sale to All Comers. Perhaps with time, Arlene's Flowers will learn that it can grow its business as well as flowers, by serving all potential customers who offer their money for artistically and botanically inspired merchandise.
An eloquently expressed sentiment to be sure, but ultimately unconvincing to the court. When one's form of artistic expression is placed into the ordinary stream of commerce, ostensibly for sale to all, than it should be exactly that, for sale to All Comers. Perhaps with time, Arlene's Flowers will learn that it can grow its business as well as flowers, by serving all potential customers who offer their money for artistically and botanically inspired merchandise.
12
she was wrong, she would not sell the flowers because they were gay and getting married. she did not want to endorse gay marriage but she would be ok endorsing other religions..... discrimination. period.
23
as a good Christian, I have to refuse to sell flowers to those evil people. It's for their own good. And if they don't want to sell to black folks, that should be fine too. No Muslims. No ugly people. Just attractive Christians only. Thank you.
10
Freedom of religion is not the freedom to judge others and discriminate if they do not meet your standards. If I believe that interracial couples violate my religious beliefs, may I discriminate against them? What if a Catholic marries a Baptist? Excuses for discrimination are everywhere. Lets show them for what they are.
20
HOW can people be proud to be bigots? I saw this as a child with racists in the south. It's all over the country, women haters, gay haters, black haters, etc. And all the bigots claim to be good Christians. They don't understand why the Bible did not want sex except straight sex between man and wife, no oral sex there even, because the writers of the Bible wanted to increase the tribes of Israel. Time to understand that gay people can have sex and go to heaven, just as man and wife can have oral sex and go to heaven.
57
Wow. Great job Washington State. Bob Ferguson has definitely been on a roll!
94
Similar to the baker in Oregon, this decision has its merits, but also opens up a slippery slope. Must an African-American or Jewish caterer serve a Klu Klux Klan convention? Must a gay florist provide flowers for a Westboro Baptist Church ceremony? Are people, by law, not allowed to follow their deeply held, moral beliefs?
Not sure I know the answer - but I am sure there were many, many florists who would have provided flowers for the plaintiffs wedding - why not respect the beliefs of this particular florist rather than force her to go against them? - or do those religious beliefs not longer matter?
Not sure I know the answer - but I am sure there were many, many florists who would have provided flowers for the plaintiffs wedding - why not respect the beliefs of this particular florist rather than force her to go against them? - or do those religious beliefs not longer matter?
10
Desperate,
The answer is no, and maybe. Try reading the piece instead of engaging in the usual false equivalency argument that so-called moderates like so much.
What's being established is that gay people are a "protected class". That's not the same as being a member of KKK.
But might be argued that a gay florist would be required to provide for a ceremony under the auspices of some fundamentalist religion that condemns homosexuality. Well...bring it on! Let's see what gay florists do in that situation.
I suspect they will put a big sign in the window saying: "We're such good florists that even Westboro Baptists uses us, even though we're gay."
It helps to have a sense of humor, which bigots mostly don't.
The answer is no, and maybe. Try reading the piece instead of engaging in the usual false equivalency argument that so-called moderates like so much.
What's being established is that gay people are a "protected class". That's not the same as being a member of KKK.
But might be argued that a gay florist would be required to provide for a ceremony under the auspices of some fundamentalist religion that condemns homosexuality. Well...bring it on! Let's see what gay florists do in that situation.
I suspect they will put a big sign in the window saying: "We're such good florists that even Westboro Baptists uses us, even though we're gay."
It helps to have a sense of humor, which bigots mostly don't.
62
It goes all ways. So a nazi baker could not serve a Jew, so a white man would not serve a black man, a Chinese person not serve a Japanese person, Turkish people would not serve Kurdish or Armenian people...the list would go on and if what you're saying is true, it would be like in the south during the Jim Crowe laws with people discriminating for every religion, race, orientation, and culture.
Like they said in the article, it's not about the flowers. It's about a business discriminating against the couple outright. Privately, sure you may theoretically discriminate - you are allowed your thoughts and opinions though they may reflect badly on you. But as a publicly operating business, you cannot turn anyone at the door. Same way employers are not allowed to discriminate. All men are created equal our constitution says.
Put yourself in their shoes, imagine you went to a flower shop and the lady said I don't serve heterosexual people, it's against my religion. How would you feel? You would be indignant as well.
Like they said in the article, it's not about the flowers. It's about a business discriminating against the couple outright. Privately, sure you may theoretically discriminate - you are allowed your thoughts and opinions though they may reflect badly on you. But as a publicly operating business, you cannot turn anyone at the door. Same way employers are not allowed to discriminate. All men are created equal our constitution says.
Put yourself in their shoes, imagine you went to a flower shop and the lady said I don't serve heterosexual people, it's against my religion. How would you feel? You would be indignant as well.
31
Thank you for making my point, since I an a "so-called moderate" who actually believes in gay rights/ marriage but not forcing others to believe! There was a time when freedom of religion was interpreted as exactly that - persons were able to follow their faith - they were "protected" under the Constitution to do so.
We are now in a position where they are no longer "protected" and must follow whatever the Courts have decided they must believe. And your point of the gay florist servicing Westboro is laughable - they would never do so, and if they did not, you did not answer the question - MUST they under law? And if your position is to be followed, why not allow the WA florist her right to her faith and let another florist "advertise" its willingness to serve a gay wedding. It's called Capitalism and customers can then choose not to go Arlene's Flowers and go to her competitor.
We are now in a position where they are no longer "protected" and must follow whatever the Courts have decided they must believe. And your point of the gay florist servicing Westboro is laughable - they would never do so, and if they did not, you did not answer the question - MUST they under law? And if your position is to be followed, why not allow the WA florist her right to her faith and let another florist "advertise" its willingness to serve a gay wedding. It's called Capitalism and customers can then choose not to go Arlene's Flowers and go to her competitor.
4
So why didn't they just go and shop at a different florist?
If Ms. Stutzman wants to turn down customers and loose business why shouldn't she be free to do so?
If Ms. Stutzman wants to turn down customers and loose business why shouldn't she be free to do so?
14
No she shouldn't, that is the point!
10
Because her business is incorporated, with the legal protections of a corporation, and corporations can't have religious beliefs.
10
Bob, why shouldn't a doctor refuse to care for an injured person and loose business?
Why shouldn't a business be able to refuse a black person at a lunch counter?
Why shouldn't a Catholic be able to refuse service to a Jew, and vice versa?
Why shouldn't a business be able to refuse a black person at a lunch counter?
Why shouldn't a Catholic be able to refuse service to a Jew, and vice versa?
8
It is pure social poison to treat "God commands me to punish you" as a legal excuse for anything.
112
Uh, Steve... I don't see the quote "God commands me to punish you." Anywhere in this article or in the comments.
Once again, an example of someone who opposes others' belief without doing their due diligence in research.
Once again, an example of someone who opposes others' belief without doing their due diligence in research.
When you business benefits from taxpayer funded access, i.e., roads, utilities, rights of way, the Internet, etc, you can not pick and choose which taxpayer you will serve.
177
Everybody benefits from roads, utilities, and the Internet. Does that mean that whatever Caesar decrees is therefore to be saluted and followed? Your argument is a non-sequitur.
1
JGrondelski - Yes, we have laws in the U.S. and everyone has to abide by those laws. How did you miss that?
3
Yes, we also have rights in the U.S., and everybody has to respect them. Even the law. The right to religious freedom existed long before pseudo-marriage did. How did you miss that?
Scared? Of what? I guess some men were also saying the same thing when women were protesting for the right to vote.
115
Bakers and florists only seem to be concerned with one sin in the Bible:
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
But unless the florists are willing to kill the gay couple, or at least call for their deaths in righteous indignation, they are not following their Christian religion.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 - Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Regardless of the translations of homosexual in the verse, unless they are also advocating for setting up a religious test for every patron to determine whether they are fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, or liars (as included in some versions) than they are disingenuously following their Christian teachings. Opportunists.
Mark 7:20-23 - What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.
Those supporting "religious freedom" seem to have a very selective view of what constitutes "a line" when there are so many evils as defined in the Bible. Hypocrites.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
But unless the florists are willing to kill the gay couple, or at least call for their deaths in righteous indignation, they are not following their Christian religion.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 - Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Regardless of the translations of homosexual in the verse, unless they are also advocating for setting up a religious test for every patron to determine whether they are fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, or liars (as included in some versions) than they are disingenuously following their Christian teachings. Opportunists.
Mark 7:20-23 - What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.
Those supporting "religious freedom" seem to have a very selective view of what constitutes "a line" when there are so many evils as defined in the Bible. Hypocrites.
159
Well said. Thank you for taking the time to write and share your thoughts.
12
It's so strange that this woman seems to have read only a few lines of Leviticus. I hope that suit she's wearing in the above picture isn't a cotton-poly blend (or any other kind of fabric blend-- Leviticus 19:19. And it's disrespectful of her to disobey 1 Timothy 2:9 by wearing jewelry. I assume that she also denies services to anyone who is divorced (Mark, multiple citations), plays football or eats pork (Leviticus 11:8) or shellfish (Leviticus again, this time 11:10).
It's ridiculous of people like this to claim that their sincere religious belief prevents them from doing their job, when ignoring the rest of it.
It's ridiculous of people like this to claim that their sincere religious belief prevents them from doing their job, when ignoring the rest of it.
9
I'm a Christian and I will be the first to admit that there are many Christians who are hypocrites. But hypocrisy can be found anywhere, including atheists, politicians, law enforcement, gays, etc.
It's unfortunate you have not studied the bible, because you have just shown us what is truly wrong with this Country -- people who contradict a belief without doing their due diligence researching. On Leviticus: many, but not all, of the laws in the old testament are softened because Christ took the cross for our sins. That doesn't make our sinning less wrong, it just means that God does not require our blood for our transgressions. As to I Corinthians or Mark, this is what we Christians believe. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to.
The problem isn't that Christians are refusing to serve gays, it's that we refuse to provide service for a particular event that celebrates something we do not believe in. Do shop owners serve "sinners"? Of course, because we all sin. It's impossible and very hypocritical to refuse to serve everyone that sins, plus it would require shop owners to have customers to fill out a moral check list: "Have you lied today?"
But when someone wants you to provide service for something that their religion believes is a sin, can we truly go against our moral standards?
Are you picking on Christians just because they oppose your view? Have we really come to the point that when someone disagrees with you we instantly start throwing punches?
It's unfortunate you have not studied the bible, because you have just shown us what is truly wrong with this Country -- people who contradict a belief without doing their due diligence researching. On Leviticus: many, but not all, of the laws in the old testament are softened because Christ took the cross for our sins. That doesn't make our sinning less wrong, it just means that God does not require our blood for our transgressions. As to I Corinthians or Mark, this is what we Christians believe. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to.
The problem isn't that Christians are refusing to serve gays, it's that we refuse to provide service for a particular event that celebrates something we do not believe in. Do shop owners serve "sinners"? Of course, because we all sin. It's impossible and very hypocritical to refuse to serve everyone that sins, plus it would require shop owners to have customers to fill out a moral check list: "Have you lied today?"
But when someone wants you to provide service for something that their religion believes is a sin, can we truly go against our moral standards?
Are you picking on Christians just because they oppose your view? Have we really come to the point that when someone disagrees with you we instantly start throwing punches?
Although I am firmly on side of the gay couple, after the Hobby Lobby decision, I would not bet on the Supreme Court to sustain the Washington decision.
17
I am not generally sympathetic to persons who use religion as excuse or tool during interactions with others. And I believe that everyone should be free to engage in whatever sex activities they wish with willing partners. But this Washington Supreme Court ruling goes too far. Flowers are not an important good or service like public accommodations, housing, food, or medical care. Under such circumstances, a small business person should be allowed to choose whom he wishes to work for. And he should be free to be foolish and reject making a sale if he chooses.
22
In this case the florist had previously "worked for" the plaintiffs for years so who they were wasn't an issue. It became an issue in what the flowers were being used for.
7
The real test of your argument is how you would feel if you or your family members were denied services because of your race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. Not being served a hamburger at your favorite fast food place , while others around you get theirs, simply because you are different than the preferred costumers is what this is about. Think about having to turn around and leave the store, embarrassed or angered that you were denied services. Think about how you would feel if your child was turned away. Your rights are equally or more important than the proprietor and that is why the decision is the right one.
17
Errol,
Having a sign out front that says "flowers for sale" is an invitation and incitement. If you think it is o.k. to practice religious bigotry, that is your privilege, but the entire supreme court of Washington does not agree with you. Nor do I and the massive majority of the United States.
Having a sign out front that says "flowers for sale" is an invitation and incitement. If you think it is o.k. to practice religious bigotry, that is your privilege, but the entire supreme court of Washington does not agree with you. Nor do I and the massive majority of the United States.
20
When Ms. Stutzman remarked "We should all be very, very scared," it seems that is the very opposite we should be. Very, very relieved is the case here since discrimination is not the law of the land yet here thanks to the justice system working. Makes me feel some hope in these troubled times.
267