Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[Katzndogz]

The florist had sold these people flowers for nine years. She wasn't refusing to sell them flowers she was refusing to sell them her artistry.

The entire concept of artistic freedom is being taken away.

So for nine years she made inartistic flower arrangements for them?

She may not have made any arrangements at all. They come in for a bouquet of flowers or a dozen roses to fill the vase at home. They walk out with the unarranged flowers.

Did she just throw the flowers at the couple or did she arrange them?

When I bought flowers they are wrapped in a plastic type paper.

 

[Asclepias]

The florist had sold these people flowers for nine years. She wasn't refusing to sell them flowers she was refusing to sell them her artistry.

The entire concept of artistic freedom is being taken away.

So for nine years she made inartistic flower arrangements for them?

She may not have made any arrangements at all. They come in for a bouquet of flowers or a dozen roses to fill the vase at home. They walk out with the unarranged flowers.

Did she just throw the flowers at the couple or did she arrange them?

When I bought flowers they are wrapped in a plastic type paper.

How did they get in the plastic? I never seen flowers grown in plastic type paper.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Has nothing to do with Relativism. It is simply a case of enforcing the law of Washington State.

"He (The Judge) said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily." Your religion might say the only way to heaven is by human sacrifice. You have the right to believe it, however if you acted it out you'll be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Unless the high court rules that accommodation laws are unconstitutional imo this decision will stand.

The moron equated it to murder? Wow. No wonder we have so many problems. We aren't talking about some nut or small nut cult dreams up. Christianity has been very well established here, lots of it on display, probably in the same court house the retard ruled from.

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

I'm discriminatory against pan handlers - should I be punished?

The comparison doesnt make much sense

That's because the comparison represents truth and as a relativist... you lack the means to discern truth.

(That's sorta the downside to it... LOL! But, in fairness, there was NO WAY you could have known that... )

 

[bodecea]

A Christian florist who was sued and found guilty of discrimination after refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding isn’t planning on backing down, recently issuing a defiant letter rejecting a settlement agreement and revealing plans to appeal her case.

After Barronelle Stutzman, 70, declined a $2,001 settlement offer in a letter to the state’s attorney general on Friday, her attorney, Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, told TheBlaze on Monday that a judge’s decision that Stutzman violated anti-discrimination law will be challenged in the state court system.

As previously reported, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom decided last week that Barronelle Stutzman violated Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act when she refused service to Robert Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed.

The state subsequently offered a settlement in which Waggoner would only need to pay a $2,000 fine and $1 in legal fees and commit to offering flowers for gay and straight weddings, alike, if she continues providing matrimony services, the Daily Mail reported.



But the florist declined the offer, with Waggoner telling TheBlaze that nothing new or protective was afforded to her client.

“Attorney General [Bob Ferguson] has relentlessly pursued her personal and professional ruin because she will not celebrate same-sex marriage. His settlement proposal offered nothing new,” she said. “The attorney general continues to pursue her business and personal assets unless she agrees to stop designing wedding arrangements and providing wedding support services for all weddings.”

Waggoner said that the government continues to send a message that artists like Stutzman will be punished if they do not embrace gay relationships.

“The government’s message is the same: as an artist, you must use your heart, mind, and hands to promote same-sex marriage or you will lose everything,” Waggoner said.

The attorney’s comments come after Stutzman penned a response letter to Ferguson, rejecting his offer and defending her religious beliefs. In it, she wrote that it has been “exhausting” to be at the center of the controversy over the past two years and said that she never imagined that her “God-given talents and abilities” would become illegal if she refused to use them to serve same-sex weddings.

“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,” she wrote.

Stutzman specifically took aim at Ferguson’s settlement offer, claiming that it shows that he truly doesn’t understand her intention to defend her religious liberty.

“Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money,” she 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.”

Stutzman continued, “Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. 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.”

Read the letter in its entirety below:

Dear Mr. Ferguson,

Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.

As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. 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.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. 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. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. 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.

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. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I 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. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.

Sincerely,

Barronelle Stutzman

Waggoner said that the letter was meant to affirm that Stutzman will not be giving up by surrendering her freedom for money.

“In what world is $2,001 a good deal for surrendering your freedom?” Waggoner said.

Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov t Settlement Offer and Her Attorney Reveals What s Next TheBlaze.com

I have a wonderful solution.....arrange to have all businesses that SHE wants to buy from refuse to serve her due to her Christianity.....grocery store? Sorry. Bank? Nope. Clothing Store? Sorry, we don't serve your kind. Etc. Let's see how long that lasts.

Go ahead and try and arrange that....so stupid.

EXACTLY! It's stupid. Glad you see it for what it is.

 

[Skylar]

Has nothing to do with Relativism. It is simply a case of enforcing the law of Washington State.

"He (The Judge) said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily." Your religion might say the only way to heaven is by human sacrifice. You have the right to believe it, however if you acted it out you'll be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Unless the high court rules that accommodation laws are unconstitutional imo this decision will stand.

The moron equated it to murder? Wow. No wonder we have so many problems. We aren't talking about some nut or small nut cult dreams up. Christianity has been very well established here, lots of it on display, probably in the same court house the retard ruled from.

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

I'm discriminatory against pan handlers - should I be punished?

The comparison doesnt make much sense

That's because the comparison represents truth and as a relativist... you lack the means to discern truth.

(That's sorta the downside to it... LOL! But, in fairness, there was NO WAY you could have known that... )

The obvious problem with your conclusion being your assumption that anything you believe must be 'objective' truth. When your beliefs are run of the mill relativistic assumption and subjective opinion.

 

[bendog]

Has nothing to do with Relativism. It is simply a case of enforcing the law of Washington State.

"He (The Judge) said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily." Your religion might say the only way to heaven is by human sacrifice. You have the right to believe it, however if you acted it out you'll be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Unless the high court rules that accommodation laws are unconstitutional imo this decision will stand.

The moron equated it to murder? Wow. No wonder we have so many problems. We aren't talking about some nut or small nut cult dreams up. Christianity has been very well established here, lots of it on display, probably in the same court house the retard ruled from.

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

I'm discriminatory against pan handlers - should I be punished?

The comparison doesnt make much sense

That's because the comparison represents truth and as a relativist... you lack the means to discern truth.

(That's sorta the downside to it... LOL! But, in fairness, there was NO WAY you could have known that... )

JFC. LOL

 

[Katzndogz]

The florist had sold these people flowers for nine years. She wasn't refusing to sell them flowers she was refusing to sell them her artistry.

The entire concept of artistic freedom is being taken away.

So for nine years she made inartistic flower arrangements for them?

She may not have made any arrangements at all. They come in for a bouquet of flowers or a dozen roses to fill the vase at home. They walk out with the unarranged flowers.

Did she just throw the flowers at the couple or did she arrange them?

When I bought flowers they are wrapped in a plastic type paper.

How did they get in the plastic? I never seen flowers grown in plastic type paper.

It's not a floral arrangement if that's what you mean. Not any more than the purchase of paints and brushes is the same as a portrait.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

A Christian florist who was sued and found guilty of discrimination after refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding isn’t planning on backing down, recently issuing a defiant letter rejecting a settlement agreement and revealing plans to appeal her case.

After Barronelle Stutzman, 70, declined a $2,001 settlement offer in a letter to the state’s attorney general on Friday, her attorney, Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, told TheBlaze on Monday that a judge’s decision that Stutzman violated anti-discrimination law will be challenged in the state court system.

As previously reported, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom decided last week that Barronelle Stutzman violated Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act when she refused service to Robert Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed.

The state subsequently offered a settlement in which Waggoner would only need to pay a $2,000 fine and $1 in legal fees and commit to offering flowers for gay and straight weddings, alike, if she continues providing matrimony services, the Daily Mail reported.



But the florist declined the offer, with Waggoner telling TheBlaze that nothing new or protective was afforded to her client.

“Attorney General [Bob Ferguson] has relentlessly pursued her personal and professional ruin because she will not celebrate same-sex marriage. His settlement proposal offered nothing new,” she said. “The attorney general continues to pursue her business and personal assets unless she agrees to stop designing wedding arrangements and providing wedding support services for all weddings.”

Waggoner said that the government continues to send a message that artists like Stutzman will be punished if they do not embrace gay relationships.

“The government’s message is the same: as an artist, you must use your heart, mind, and hands to promote same-sex marriage or you will lose everything,” Waggoner said.

The attorney’s comments come after Stutzman penned a response letter to Ferguson, rejecting his offer and defending her religious beliefs. In it, she wrote that it has been “exhausting” to be at the center of the controversy over the past two years and said that she never imagined that her “God-given talents and abilities” would become illegal if she refused to use them to serve same-sex weddings.

“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,” she wrote.

Stutzman specifically took aim at Ferguson’s settlement offer, claiming that it shows that he truly doesn’t understand her intention to defend her religious liberty.

“Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money,” she 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.”

Stutzman continued, “Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. 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.”

Read the letter in its entirety below:

Dear Mr. Ferguson,

Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.

As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. 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.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. 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. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. 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.

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. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I 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. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.

Sincerely,

Barronelle Stutzman

Waggoner said that the letter was meant to affirm that Stutzman will not be giving up by surrendering her freedom for money.

“In what world is $2,001 a good deal for surrendering your freedom?” Waggoner said.

Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov t Settlement Offer and Her Attorney Reveals What s Next TheBlaze.com

I have a wonderful solution.....arrange to have all businesses that SHE wants to buy from refuse to serve her due to her Christianity.....grocery store? Sorry. Bank? Nope. Clothing Store? Sorry, we don't serve your kind. Etc. Let's see how long that lasts.

Go ahead and try and arrange that....so stupid.

EXACTLY! It's stupid. Glad you see it for what it is.

I meant you're stupid, cupcake

 

[bendog]

Has nothing to do with Relativism. It is simply a case of enforcing the law of Washington State.

"He (The Judge) said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily." Your religion might say the only way to heaven is by human sacrifice. You have the right to believe it, however if you acted it out you'll be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Unless the high court rules that accommodation laws are unconstitutional imo this decision will stand.

The moron equated it to murder? Wow. No wonder we have so many problems. We aren't talking about some nut or small nut cult dreams up. Christianity has been very well established here, lots of it on display, probably in the same court house the retard ruled from.

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

I'm discriminatory against pan handlers - should I be punished?

The comparison doesnt make much sense

That's because the comparison represents truth and as a relativist... you lack the means to discern truth.

(That's sorta the downside to it... LOL! But, in fairness, there was NO WAY you could have known that... )

The obvious problem with your conclusion being your assumption that anything you believe must be 'objective' truth. When your beliefs are run of the mill relativistic assumption and subjective opinion.

The problem with his post is he actually sees a logical comparison between discriminating against panhandlers (who ask for something for nothing) and a florist who advertises she wants to sell something of value. And he bitches about relativism. LOL

 

[bodecea]

I got sued by two lesbians. They sued my business. They just didn't get very far before they lost.

Do tell?

She keeps saying that....with no evidence it's true. IMO, it's just talk.

 

[bodecea]

I got sued by two lesbians. They sued my business. They just didn't get very far before they lost.

What did they sue you for?

I refused to paint their wedding portrait. Then I threw them out the door as tresspassers.

Sure you did, sweetheart. Sure you did.

 

[ogibillm]

Has nothing to do with Relativism. It is simply a case of enforcing the law of Washington State.

"He (The Judge) said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily." Your religion might say the only way to heaven is by human sacrifice. You have the right to believe it, however if you acted it out you'll be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Unless the high court rules that accommodation laws are unconstitutional imo this decision will stand.

The moron equated it to murder? Wow. No wonder we have so many problems. We aren't talking about some nut or small nut cult dreams up. Christianity has been very well established here, lots of it on display, probably in the same court house the retard ruled from.

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

I'm discriminatory against pan handlers - should I be punished?

The comparison doesnt make much sense

That's because the comparison represents truth and as a relativist... you lack the means to discern truth.

(That's sorta the downside to it... LOL! But, in fairness, there was NO WAY you could have known that... )

The obvious problem with your conclusion being your assumption that anything you believe must be 'objective' truth. When your beliefs are run of the mill relativistic assumption and subjective opinion.

The problem with his post is he actually sees a logical comparison between discriminating against panhandlers (who ask for something for nothing) and a florist who advertises she wants to sell something of value. And he bitches about relativism. LOL

he just doesn't understand what rellativism is. not his fault, he was likely born stupid.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Has nothing to do with Relativism. It is simply a case of enforcing the law of Washington State.

"He (The Judge) said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily." Your religion might say the only way to heaven is by human sacrifice. You have the right to believe it, however if you acted it out you'll be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Unless the high court rules that accommodation laws are unconstitutional imo this decision will stand.

The moron equated it to murder? Wow. No wonder we have so many problems. We aren't talking about some nut or small nut cult dreams up. Christianity has been very well established here, lots of it on display, probably in the same court house the retard ruled from.

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

I'm discriminatory against pan handlers - should I be punished?

The comparison doesnt make much sense

That's because the comparison represents truth and as a relativist... you lack the means to discern truth.

(That's sorta the downside to it... LOL! But, in fairness, there was NO WAY you could have known that... )

The obvious problem with your conclusion being your assumption that anything you believe must be 'objective' truth. When your beliefs are run of the mill relativistic assumption and subjective opinion.

HEY! Straw Reasoning! And from a Leftist! How positively typical.

Sadly, the bad news is that straw reasoning yields from the standing point, thus concedes to that point. The good news is that Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[bodecea]

The bigots want STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries and florists and lunch counters.

They will need a sign like this one:

Comrade Jake, how would these bakeries and florists even know a customer was gay - unless the customer announces it?

Behavior <> skin color - even if your filthy party tries to make it so,

If it's homo men look for a lisp, limp wrist, sashaying and the use of the word fabulous. Women: look for lots of flannel, hairy lips and backs and men's haircuts

So you admit that you haven't a clue as to all the gays around you.

 

[bodecea]

The bigots want STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries and florists and lunch counters.

They will need a sign like this one:

Comrade Jake, how would these bakeries and florists even know a customer was gay - unless the customer announces it?

Behavior <> skin color - even if your filthy party tries to make it so,

If it's homo men look for a lisp, limp wrist, sashaying and the use of the word fabulous. Women: look for lots of flannel, hairy lips and backs and men's haircuts

And Jews have big noses...and black people love watermelon.....

And the Irish are short, stupid, drunk and never bathe. The women have a zillion kids with a zillion men.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The bigots want STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries and florists and lunch counters.

They will need a sign like this one:

Comrade Jake, how would these bakeries and florists even know a customer was gay - unless the customer announces it?

Behavior <> skin color - even if your filthy party tries to make it so,

If it's homo men look for a lisp, limp wrist, sashaying and the use of the word fabulous. Women: look for lots of flannel, hairy lips and backs and men's haircuts

So you admit that you haven't a clue as to all the gays around you.

Actually there are very few around me as far as my personal life, children attend a private school, we are Catholic, I work from home and my husband is responsible for hiring associates. The only time I'm subjected to the perversion is out in public and my gaydar is in perfect working order

 

[Syriusly]

I got sued by two lesbians. They sued my business. They just didn't get very far before they lost.

What did they sue you for?

I refused to paint their wedding portrait. Then I threw them out the door as tresspassers.

Sure you did, sweetheart. Sure you did.

Right after he had a threesome with both of them!

And wore them out!

 

[Skylar]

Has nothing to do with Relativism. It is simply a case of enforcing the law of Washington State.

"He (The Judge) said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily." Your religion might say the only way to heaven is by human sacrifice. You have the right to believe it, however if you acted it out you'll be charged with murder and thrown in jail. Unless the high court rules that accommodation laws are unconstitutional imo this decision will stand.

The moron equated it to murder? Wow. No wonder we have so many problems. We aren't talking about some nut or small nut cult dreams up. Christianity has been very well established here, lots of it on display, probably in the same court house the retard ruled from.

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

I'm discriminatory against pan handlers - should I be punished?

The comparison doesnt make much sense

That's because the comparison represents truth and as a relativist... you lack the means to discern truth.

(That's sorta the downside to it... LOL! But, in fairness, there was NO WAY you could have known that... )

The obvious problem with your conclusion being your assumption that anything you believe must be 'objective' truth. When your beliefs are run of the mill relativistic assumption and subjective opinion.

HEY! Straw Reasoning! And from a Leftist! How positively typical.

Oh, then you aren't claiming that your position is 'truth'.

Well that was easy.

Sadly, the bad news is that straw reasoning yields from the standing point, thus concedes to that point. The good news is that Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You abandoning every point you've discussed and then bizarrely declaring summary victory.

Gee, how did I know that was coming?

Your claims just failed the logic test, that's how. There is no marriage in nature. Making your insistence that marriage is defined exclusively by nature irrational claptrap. With your claims regarding 'physiology' and the basis of marriage being obliterated by polygamy.

And the fact that millions of infertile and childless couples are either allowed to be married or remain married demonstrating elegantly that there's a perfectly valid basis of marriage that doesn't involve children or the ability to have them.

So what do you do when faced with truck sized holes in your reasoning? You run. Keep running, my little relativist.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The bigots want STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries and florists and lunch counters.

They will need a sign like this one:

Comrade Jake, how would these bakeries and florists even know a customer was gay - unless the customer announces it?

Behavior <> skin color - even if your filthy party tries to make it so,

If it's homo men look for a lisp, limp wrist, sashaying and the use of the word fabulous. Women: look for lots of flannel, hairy lips and backs and men's haircuts

And Jews have big noses...and black people love watermelon.....

And the Irish are short, stupid, drunk and never bathe. The women have a zillion kids with a zillion men.

Yay!!!!! I've pissed the lezbo off. SUCCESS!!!!!!

 

[Syriusly]

The bigots want STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries and florists and lunch counters.

They will need a sign like this one:

Comrade Jake, how would these bakeries and florists even know a customer was gay - unless the customer announces it?

Behavior <> skin color - even if your filthy party tries to make it so,

If it's homo men look for a lisp, limp wrist, sashaying and the use of the word fabulous. Women: look for lots of flannel, hairy lips and backs and men's haircuts

So you admit that you haven't a clue as to all the gays around you.

Actually there are very few around me as far as my personal life, children attend a private school, we are Catholic, I work from home and my husband is responsible for hiring associates. The only time I'm subjected to the perversion is out in public and my gaydar is in perfect working order

LOL....of course....because gays don't teach at private schools and of course there are no gay Catholics.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.