Remember Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers in Washington state? She's the one who ran afoul of the state's anti-discrimination law when she refused to sell flowers to a gay couple (who had been regular customers for years) for their wedding, because Jesus. Hypocrisy point number 1: she had no trouble taking their money all that time, even though she knew they were gay, which in her book (you know the one I mean) is a no-no.
Well, the state offered her a settlement:
Hypocrisy point number 2: Apparently, we have to respect her differences, but not the other way around. Why, she sounds arrogant and self-absorbed enough to qualify as a Real Christian™.
Potential hypocrisy point number 3: Any guesses on whether her beliefs prohibit her selling wedding flowers to divorcees?
The judge who heard the case made a very good point:
She plans to appeal the ruling. She's represented by the ADF. Any competent attorney would have told her to accept the settlement, which is really only a slap on the write, but it's another chance to point to the "evils" of treating gay people like -- well, people.
Via Joe.My.God.
And here's some of the rhetoric leading up to this moment of Christian defiance:
Seems sort of anticlimactic, if you ask me.
Well, the state offered her a settlement:
A florist who refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding has rejected an offer from the Washington state attorney general to settle a discrimination case by paying a $2,000 fine.
The rejected settlement also said if the florist chose to continue selling flowers for weddings she would have to sell the items to all couples, including same-sex couples.
“Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences,” Barronelle Stutzman wrote in a letter Friday to Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
She wrote that gay couples are allowed to act on their views, but “because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.”
Hypocrisy point number 2: Apparently, we have to respect her differences, but not the other way around. Why, she sounds arrogant and self-absorbed enough to qualify as a Real Christian™.
Potential hypocrisy point number 3: Any guesses on whether her beliefs prohibit her selling wedding flowers to divorcees?
The judge who heard the case made a very good point:
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom on Wednesday rejected arguments that Stutzman’s actions were protected by her freedoms of speech and religion.
The First Amendment protects religious beliefs but not necessarily actions based on those beliefs, Ekstrom ruled. The state has the authority to prohibit discrimination, and Stutzman can be held personally liable for damages if she breaks bias laws, the judge said.
She plans to appeal the ruling. She's represented by the ADF. Any competent attorney would have told her to accept the settlement, which is really only a slap on the write, but it's another chance to point to the "evils" of treating gay people like -- well, people.
Via Joe.My.God.
And here's some of the rhetoric leading up to this moment of Christian defiance:
Stutzman "stands to lose her business, her home, and her personal savings," a CNN op-ed today wrongly claimed.
And The Heritage Foundation ran this apparently fictive piece today:
In a phone interview with The Daily Signal, Barronelle Stutzman said the decision—and its accompanying fines—will put her flower shop out of business, or worse.After the fines and legal fees, “There won’t be anything left,” Stutzman said.“They want my home, they want my business, they want my personal finances as an example for other people to be quiet.”
Seems sort of anticlimactic, if you ask me.
No comments:
Post a Comment