Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ms. Stutzman has said she has hired gay employees and served any number of gay customers over the years, but her Christian beliefs prevent her from participating in a same-sex wedding. Such services would include “custom design work to decorate the ceremony, delivery to the forum, staying at the ceremony to touch up arrangements, and assisting the wedding party,” the Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement.
Ms. Stutzman has said she has hired gay employees and served any number of gay customers over the years, but her Christian beliefs prevent her from participating in a same-sex wedding. Such services would include “custom design work to decorate the ceremony, delivery to the forum, staying at the ceremony to touch up arrangements, and assisting the wedding party,” the Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement.
So if a couple orders 5 corsages, and a bouquet, she has to deliver, stay for touch ups, and assist the wedding party? Seriously?
It may be an OPTION, but not a requirement for every wedding. In fact this couple wanted some twigs in vases that they were going to add candles to and boutonnieres. Why would that require her to attend the wedding, assist the wedding party, or do any "touch ups"?
Ms. Stutzman has said she has hired gay employees and served any number of gay customers over the years, but her Christian beliefs prevent her from participating in a same-sex wedding. Such services would include “custom design work to decorate the ceremony, delivery to the forum, staying at the ceremony to touch up arrangements, and assisting the wedding party,” the Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement.
Oh, so she never said that in this instance the gay men were requesting that level of service. In fact, she didn't ever make the statement you said she made - the statement about what floral services "would" entail came from Alliance Defending Freedom, which is an evangelical Christian activist group.
That's a pretty dishonest and misleading statement from Alliance Defending Freedom considering her under oath statements indicate pretty much the exact opposite in this particular circumstance.
On page 15 he goes into state religious freedom in law and the state constitution.
Reading page 15 Although the judges make a disclaimer that the government cannot interfere with religious freedom, with the same breath. HE DOES JUST THAT.........but for the sake of the collective(my words)....it "must comply if it want to operate" the state is saying .....in that case it was the church operating the hospital....do as we say to be able to operate............CATCH 22.... State interference, NOT in compliance with; Congress shall make no law with regards to religious exercise...etc:
THEN THIS WAS THE MIND BLOWER...(too bad can't cut and paste)..quote from page 15...
"The liberty of conscience hereby secured(1st amend) shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness or JUSTIFY practices inconsistent with the safety of the state.
How does the Judge know that her "conscience" was in licentiousness mode, is he a mind reader???
He just accused her of using religion to " ignoring Accepted rules of standards" licentiousness - definition of licentiousness by The Free Dictionary
Archaic Ignoring accepted rules or standards, as of prescriptive grammar. [Latin licentiōsus, from licentia, freedom, license
ERRRRR...................Sodomy is NOT an accepted standard not by religion or by many secular people.
The will of the people around the US was stomped on to promote the sodomite agenda.
Legislatures were black mailed/black balled if they didn't comply and pass sodomites bills.
THAT NEVER MADE IT ACCEPTABLE ...people have no choice but to tolerate the arrogant state bureaucrats who ignore the will of the people.(Can you say tyranny?)
YOU HAVE GOT TO WATCH JUDGES/ AND LAWYERS THEY WILL SOUND GOOD BUT ON SCRUTINY they just screw people over.
I don't buy this Judges line of crap for one minute. He STOMPED ON HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT WITH FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS. THIS IS ANOTHER FARCE COMING OUT OF THE renegade social engineers in Black Robe. Want an appointment Justice Political Puppet? Rule on this, the way me and Senator TakesItUptheButt wants or kiss that promotion, goodbye! Got it? Good.
Again I say, The Constitution of Bill of Rights Trumps. As the Judges ruling has "No standing." based on fallacious assertions.
Reading page 15 Although the judges make a disclaimer that the government cannot interfere with religious freedom, with the same breath. HE DOES JUST THAT.........but for the sake of the collective(my words)....it "must comply if it want to operate" the state is saying .....in that case it was the church operating the hospital....do as we say to be able to operate............CATCH 22.... State interference NOT in compliance with Congress shall make no law with regards to religious exercise...etc:
THEN THIS WAS THE MIND BLOWER...(too bad can't cut and paste)..quote from page 15...
"The liberty of conscience hereby secured(1st amend) shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness or JUSTIFY practices inconsistent with the safety of the state.
How does the Judge know that her "conscience" was in licentiousness mode, is he a mind reader???
He just accused her of using religion to " ignoring Accepted rules of standards" licentiousness - definition of licentiousness by The Free Dictionary
Archaic Ignoring accepted rules or standards, as of prescriptive grammar. [Latin licentiōsus, from licentia, freedom, license
ERRRRR...................Sodomy is NOT an accepted standard not by religion or by many secular people.
The will of the people around the US were stomped on to promote the sodomite agenda.
Legislatures were black mailed/black balled if they didn't comply and pass sodomites bills.
THAT NEVER MADE IT ACCEPTABLE ...people have no choice but to tolerate the arrogant state bureaucrats who ignore the will of the people.(Can you say tyranny?)
YOU HAVE GOT TO WATCH JUDGES/ AND LAWYERS THEY WILL SOUND GOOD BUT ON SCRUTINY they just screw people over.
I don't buy this Judges line of crap for one minute. He STROMPED ON HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT WITH FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS. THIS IS ANOTHER FARCE COMING OUT OF THE renegade social engineers in Black Robe. Want an appointment Justice Political Puppet? Rule on this, the way me and Senator TakesItUptheButt wants or kiss that promotion, goodbye! Got it? Good.
Again I say, The Constitution of Bill of Rights Trumps. As the Judges ruling has "No standing." based on fallacious assertions.
You seem to believe that you know more about constitutional law than the scores of judges, including the supreme court on several occasions, that have ruled on such cases.
Where did you attend law school, and when were you a supreme court justice or state judge, or circuit court judge?
So if a couple orders 5 corsages, and a bouquet, she has to deliver, stay for touch ups, and assist the wedding party? Seriously?
It may be an OPTION, but not a requirement for every wedding. In fact this couple wanted some twigs in vases that they were going to add candles to and boutonnieres. Why would that require her to attend the wedding, assist the wedding party, or do any "touch ups"?
Either way she still was in violation of the law.
Thank you for finally posting the link.
I posted the link previously. I didn't "finally" post it. You were too lazy or unskilled to find it on you own, so I spent the time finding it again just for you. You are welcome.
Keep ignoring the facts that don't fit you preconceived judgment. That doesn't mean you are right.
Oh, so she never said that in this instance the gay men were requesting that level of service. In fact, she didn't ever make the statement you said she made - the statement about what floral services "would" entail came from Alliance Defending Freedom, which is an evangelical Christian activist group.
That's a pretty dishonest and misleading statement from Alliance Defending Freedom considering her under oath statements indicate pretty much the exact opposite in this particular circumstance.
Arguing about the source and ignoring the facts is a fallacy that those without valid arguments have to use. The source of the comments does not invalidate their authenticity.
Arguing about the source and ignoring the facts is a fallacy that those without valid arguments have to use. The source of the comments does not invalidate their authenticity.
But your article isn't even claiming those were comments she made. The article simply quoted the Alliance Defending Freedom's characterization of what it says florists do when they sell to wedding parties. I'm not ignoring any "facts" about this case - the Alliance Defending Freedom's statement doesn't contain any facts.
Analogy? That's a real-world example, more or less. However, in this case the proprietors who were refusing to serve customers with service dogs were Muslims citing their religious objections to dealing with dogs. These were taxi drivers, and they were also refusing to serve people transporting alcohol. In particular, these cab drivers were working at MSP, the largest airport in the Midwest after O'Hare (background - in the Twin Cities, a great many taxi drivers come from the local Somali community, which is Muslim). http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1
And, you guessed it - there was nary a peep from Christians when this happened, and it made national news. At least, there were no Christians speaking out on behalf of the Muslims. Locally, plenty of them chimed in with outrage that these Muslims didn't want to follow the law. They did not for a moment see this as discriminatory. I have no doubt that many of the Christians whining and pouting about proprietors in Washington having to obey the law wouldn't for a moment demand the same special treatment for those Muslim cab drivers. So much for those actual principles they claim to hold.
Those cab drivers got exactly what they deserved - the choice to serve customers as required by law, or to find another line of work. And that's exactly is deserved by anti-gay Christians business-folk who try and hide their bigoted malice behind a shield of piety.
I posted the link previously. I didn't "finally" post it. You were too lazy or unskilled to find it on you own, so I spent the time finding it again just for you. You are welcome.
Keep ignoring the facts that don't fit you preconceived judgment. That doesn't mean you are right.
The problem for you and ADF is the florist never let the guy reach the point of discussing precisely what he wanted. Maybe she assumed his request would involve much more participation on her part than what he actually wanted --- sticks, twigs, stems, branches, in vases.
Who knows, had the conversation been a little different, she might have been pleased to do what he wanted, and he and his spouse still loyal customers and friends..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you
