Friday, February 17, 2017

We Won A Battle

This time it is out on the West coast in the state of Washington, you may remember the florist who wouldn’t sell flowers to a gay couple well she had her time in court.
A Florist Who Refused A Gay Couple Just Lost At The Washington State Supreme Court
Barronelle Stutzman claimed her Christian faith exempted her from the state’s LGBT nondiscrimination law. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed, unanimously.
By Dominic Holden
February 16,

The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously against a Christian florist who had refused to sell flowers for a gay couple’s wedding, despite the florist’s claim that her religious objections provided legal cover.

Along with the gay couple, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson had sued Arlene’s Flowers in 2013 for violating the state’s nondiscrimination law and consumer protection act.

The court wrote in its 9–0 decision that the law is constitutional because it is a “neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.” As such, the court ruled, “We affirm the trial court’s rulings.”
Anyone want to guess what the religious right had to say about the decision?
FRC Stunned By Washington State Court Ruling that Puts Florist's Own Home at Risk of Seizure
FRC Press Release
February 16, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C.  -- Family Research Council (FRC) expressed outrage after the Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling today that puts at risk the home and personal assets of Barronelle Stutzman, a florist shop owner who told two men that she'd be happy to sell them flowers but couldn't -- in good conscience -- arrange them for a wedding ceremony that violated her faith.

Of the decision, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said:

"The Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling tramples on our nation’s long held tradition of respecting the freedom of Americans to follow their deeply held beliefs, especially when it comes to participating in activities and ceremonies that so many Americans consider sacred.

"The court also ignored an opportunity to reaffirm the basic principle that the government may not trample on the constitutional rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion. These rights do not stop at the door of your local church, and instead extend to every area of a religious person's life.

"The government has no authority to force Americans like Barronelle Stutzman to engage in speech and events with which they morally disagree.
Yes they do!

You can’t hide your bigotry behind a cloak of religion. The courts over and over have ruled that bigotry and discrimination are prohibited and there are no special laws exempting bigots.

As I have said over and over again when you open your business to the public you must serve all the of the public, you cannot discriminate because of race, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, or any other protected class.

No comments: