Christian Florist Can Lose Personal Assets for Declining Gay Wedding

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Christian Florist Can Lose Personal Assets for Declining Gay Wedding Due to 'Relationship With Jesus,' Judge Rules

A florist in Washington State who refused to provide floral arrangements to a gay couple for their same-sex wedding ceremony, due to her religious objection to such a union, can now legally be sued personally by the state's attorney general's office, a judge in the state has determined.

Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled last week that the state may bring a consumer protection lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, as she is being accused of violating the Consumer Protection Act when she declined to provide floral arrangements to a regular customer's same-sex wedding because it went against her Christian beliefs.

The judge's decision means that Stutzman remains at risk of suffering a serious personal financial hit and potential loss of her business. Ekstrom has set the trial date for March 23.

"The clear language of the Consumer Protection Act and state anti-discrimination law supports both corporation and individual liability," Ekstrom said in explaining his decision.


Related
Washington Florist Who Declined to Make Arrangements for Gay Wedding May Lose Her Business, Personal Assets
California Couple Stops Photographing Weddings to Avoid Having to Shoot Same-Sex Ceremonies
13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message: 'Gay Marriage Is Wrong'
Suit Against Pennsylvania Wedding Venue That Declined to Host Same-Sex Weddings Unsuccessful
NY Christian Couple Fined ,000 for Refusing Lesbian Wedding Ceremony on Farm

The Alliance Defending Freedom, an advocacy group defending religious expression and also representing Stutzman, filed a motion stating that state law does not allow for a person to be sued personally for actions taken under business capacity. The organization also argues that Stutzman did not discriminate against the customer because she has served him flowers many times in the past.

"Washington law does not allow someone to attack a business officer personally rather than just sue the business absent such exceptional circumstances as when the officer knowingly engaged in fraud, misrepresentation or theft,'" the motion states.

Stutzman was approached in 2012 by one of her frequent customers, Robert Ingersoll, and he asked her to supply the flowers for his wedding ceremony, where he would marry his partner, Curt Freed. She politely told him that she could not provide the arrangements to that event without conflicting with her deeply-held religious belief that homosexuality is sin.

"I just took his hands and said, 'I'm sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ," Stutzman told reporters.

After Ingersoll posted on Facebook about his denial at the flower shop, Stutzman began receiving a number of threatening letters, emails and phone calls from LGBT activists.

"It blew way out of proportion," Stutzman said. "I've had hate mail, I've had people that want to burn my building. I've had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell their friends."

A few weeks after the incident, the state's Attorney General Bob Ferguson sent Stutzman a letter saying that she must handle floral arrangements for homosexual marriages and ordered her to comply with the state anti-discrimination law. Ferguson threatened legal action if Stutzman did not comply, which she refused to do so.

Two lawsuits were filed against Stutzman, one from Ferguson's office and the other from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ADF motion also states that the attorney general's office involvement against Stutzman is unwarranted because no complaint was filed before he pressed violation charges.

"This court should reject the Attorney General's illegitimate claim of authority to bring this action," the motion states. "Accordingly, this court should dismiss the complaint filed by the State of Washington for lack of primary jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by law, and lack of standing."

As the Family Policy Network of Washington states, the judge's decision means that the state can go after the business assets of Arlene's Flowers and the personal assets of Stutzman in order to collect attorney's fees if their lawsuit is successful.

"In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not intimidate citizens into speaking and acting contrary to their faith under threat of severe punishment," Kristen Waggoner, the ADF attorney representing Stutzman, said. "The government is sending a clear message to Barronelle and the people of Washington: Dare to disagree with the government and you put your home, your family business and your life savings at risk."

Wow, pretty soon anyone who actually practices their faith, will face banktuptcy, and inability to work. Whose the intolerant bully now?

What happened to freedom of religion? Is it now freedom of religion, except for ___________? And since when do business assets apply to all personal assets?

This is quickly becoming a fascist nation.

3/11/2016 Update to this story here: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Gay-Wedding&p=4647383&viewfull=1#post4647383
 
Last edited:

GFR7

New member
This is not right. :nono:
It was, however, predicted by quite a few critics of same sex marriage.
 

Jose Fly

New member
I'm continually fascinated at how the fundamentalists just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that laws regarding public accommodations don't apply to personal conduct.

The fundies keep taking cases like this, which are about public accommodation, as indicating that "It'll be illegal to be a Christian" someday.

Fascinating.
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
I'm continually fascinated at how the fundamentalists just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that laws regarding public accommodations don't apply to personal conduct...Fascinating.
icon_spock.gif


Laws come from God. :poly: They are for men to figure out. 1 Tim. 1:9, Jas 4:12, Mt 5:18
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I'm continually fascinated at how the fundamentalists just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that laws regarding public accommodations don't apply to personal conduct.

The fundies keep taking cases like this, which are about public accommodation, as indicating that "It'll be illegal to be a Christian" someday.

Fascinating.

They love playing the part of would-be martyrs and screaming "persecution!" every chance they get...which is exactly the last thing a persecuted person would ever be able to do, come to think of it.
 

TracerBullet

New member
And what would happen to a florist who refused to provide floral arrangements to an African American couple due to her religious objection?
 

resodko

BANNED
Banned
And what would happen to a florist who refused to provide floral arrangements to an African American couple due to her religious objection?

why shouldn't a florist (or any american citizen) be free to enter into a business agreement (or not) with whoever they choose, for whatever reason they choose?

why should the government have the power to force people into business agreements they find objectionable?
 

TracerBullet

New member
why shouldn't a florist (or any american citizen) be free to enter into a business agreement (or not) with whoever they choose, for whatever reason they choose?

why should the government have the power to force people into business agreements they find objectionable?

I'm sure many businesses find you objectionable but the law protects you from discrimination just like it does everyone else
 

resodko

BANNED
Banned
I'm sure many businesses find you objectionable but the law protects you from discrimination just like it does everyone else

iow, the law forces those who would wish not to enter into a business relationship with me to do otherwise

that's a bad law
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Update to this:

Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Offered Settlement; I Will Not Be Like Judas, Betray Jesus for Money, She Replied

After a judge ruled last week that Washington florist and Christian grandmother Barronelle Stutzman violated the law when she refused to provide arrangements for a same-sex wedding, Stutzman rejected a tempting settlement offer that would have spared her from losing her home and business, because it would have forced her to turn her back on God.

As Stutzman was found guilty of violating Washington's non-discrimination law last Wednesday for declining to service the wedding of Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed in 2013 due to her Christian belief of marriage, Stutzman runs the risk of losing not only her business but her house and life savings once a summary judgement is reached.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson offered the 70-year-old Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's flowers, a settlement on Thursday that would have spared Stutzman the high, bankrupting legal costs that she could incur as a result of the summary judgement.

The settlement offer would have required Stutzman to pay just $2,001 in fines and legal costs. However, the settlement also would have required Stutzman go against her religious beliefs and agree service gay wedding requests.

"I am prepared to settle this matter for a penalty of $2,000 under the Consumer Protection Act, a $1 payment for costs and fees, an agreement not to discriminate in the future, and an end to further litigation," Ferguson said in a statement.

The next day, Stutzman sent a letter to Ferguson rejecting his settlement and stating that the settlement would have required her to betray Jesus Christ, much like Judas did.

"Washington's constitution guarantees us 'freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.' I cannot sell that precious freedom," Stutzman's letter asserts. "You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do."

Stutzman's letter added that Ferguson continues to prove that he does not understand the true meaning of "freedom."

"Your offer reveals that you don't really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It's about freedom, not money," Stutzman wrote. "I certainly don't relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important."

Although Stutzman has been portrayed by some media outlets as being an intolerable bigot for refusing to serve a gay wedding, Stutzman served Robert Ingersoll for over 9 years before he asked her to provide floral arrangements for his gay wedding. Even though Stutzman had built a great relationship with Ingersoll, she could not in good faith put her full heart into making floral arrangements for Ingersoll's wedding and thought it would be best to decline to Ingersoll's request.

After much social media uproar, Ferguson's office filed a lawsuit against Stutzman, although no official complaint was filed against her. After the state filed a lawsuit, the couple filed a lawsuit with backing from the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend," Stutzman's letter stated. "I've also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating and having a home.

"If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process," Stutzman added.

Stutzman further added that the state's laws present a double standard when it comes to protecting citizens' differing beliefs on marriage.

"Our state would be a better place if we respected each other's differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences," Stutzman wrote. "Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, 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."

Excellent, I applaud her. By trying to force her to deny her beliefs, she is also being forced not to have freedom of speech and conscience in addition to being threatened personally instead of just her business, which is ludicrous.
 

WizardofOz

New member
They love playing the part of would-be martyrs and screaming "persecution!" every chance they get...which is exactly the last thing a persecuted person would ever be able to do, come to think of it.

I guess homosexuals are no longer persecuted then, come to think of it :think:
And what would happen to a florist who refused to provide floral arrangements to an African American couple due to her religious objection?
And tracer'onetrickpony'bullet recycles the same post he's made so many time before. :yawn:
 

TracerBullet

New member
Excellent, I applaud her. By trying to force her to deny her beliefs, she is also being forced not to have freedom of speech and conscience in addition to being threatened personally instead of just her business, which is ludicrous.

Expecting a business person to treat minorities with dignity and respect is forcing her to deny her beliefs?
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And what would happen to a florist who refused to provide floral arrangements to an African American couple due to her religious objection?

Ideally ... the African American couple tells two friends ... and then they tell two friends ... and so on and so on, etc.

What happens to a business owner who happens to be African American or Jewish and refuses to make a cake for a Neo-Nazi that reads "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."?
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
Ideally ... the African American couple tells two friends ... and then they tell two friends ... and so on and so on, etc.

What happens to a business owner who happens to be African American or Jewish and refuses to make a cake for a Neo-Nazi that reads "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."?

I'd like an answer on this as well. :plain:
 

PureX

Well-known member
Ideally ... the African American couple tells two friends ... and then they tell two friends ... and so on and so on, etc.

What happens to a business owner who happens to be African American or Jewish and refuses to make a cake for a Neo-Nazi that reads "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."?
Laws are based on reason. That's why we have trials: not just to determine who did what to whom, but to consider the mitigating factors and use them to establish a resolution. The message on the cake, for example, is a specific factor that creates a specific mitigating circumstance involving the baker's rights of 'speech'. The baker may well have the right, under his freedom of speech, to refuse to sell a cake with a message on it that he does not endorse. Even though he would not have the right to refuse to sell a cake with no message on it to the nazi.

One of the things I find annoying about all these threads involving the abuse of consumer rights laws is that the people who write about them never bother to include or consider these mitigating factors. And yet it's upon these kinds of factors that the cases will ultimately be decided, and the fines assessed if there are any.
 
Top