Surely there were racist restaurant, etc., owners in the South who closed down rather than serve Negroes. I hope she goes out of business on principle.

This woman just continues to look stoopider and stoopider, except to those that are too blinded by "their relationship with Jesus!" to know any better.

I feel like this may have been an intentionally concocted challenge to the anti-discrimination law. A florist, seriously? And FPIW is saying "this is about the AD law" instead of screaming "SEE, SLIPPERY SLOPE"? Hmmm...

Why can't the right just group the gays in with the african americans? They can still hate us, they just have to be a bit more circumspect in their hatred. And really, isn't that what religious liberty is all about?

@1

Well, there are schools that shut down the extracurricular programs rather than allow for gay-straight alliances to meet on school property.

Of course she could also select the third option and become a martyr for the right by shutting down her business and reinforcing the idea in the 30+ states that have amended their constitutions to outlaw gay marriage that this exactly the kind of thing that would happen if gay marriage was made legal. I get fighting for rights, but this is hardly on the level of access to housing or protection from being fired for discrimination.

Isn't it overkill to use the power of the State to force someone to do flowers for your wedding? What could go wrong with that? No gay-run or gay-friendly florist in the Tri Cities that deserves their business and would be happy to take their money?

@5: All I hear is a sad trombone. Good luck with your Kickstarter campaign.

@3 --
This is horrible. This is their Rosa Parks.

I am already tired of hearing from moderates: "They said this was about marriage. They said this is about love. They promised they wouldn't force anyone to violate their religious beliefs. Why are they making that poor grandma choose between her church or her business?"

We won this on the freedom argument. The first major act after our victory? Suing the shit out of some old woman.

@ 5 Homosexula behavior is chosen? That is laughable

Just boycott the damn florist. The owner is an asshole for refusing the couple based on hateful beliefs, but it should be her right to serve whoever the hell she wants. Why would you even want someone so bigoted and philosophically at odds with your beliefs making flowers for your wedding anyway? The couple should take their business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same, but invoking the law is absurd and makes it difficult for me to sympathize with them.

News flash to Stutzman: selling things in a business is not free speech. Nor is it an exercise in religion. No one's forcing you to make flowers for free on your own time for gays. No one is forcing you to carry a rainbow flag on the sidewalk. If you want use free speech to join Westboro Baptist Church with childish vulgar signs on your own time, go right ahead. But if you want the right to take the public's money by selling goods, then the public has a right for you not to discriminate.

@ 9 By moderates do you mean Republicans?

@5 -- Race may not be a protected class, but religion is. Religion is way easier to choose than love, wouldn't you say?

@ 5, did you ever go through with your threat to evict your gay and lesbian tenants? You know, you can "fight the fight" yourself by doing just that.

@9 if she was refusing to sell to an interracial couple on the basis of free speech and religion, would you still be calling her some poor old woman? Same principle.

#5, you fucking moron, "fags" don't want "more rights than others," they want THE SAME AMOUNT OF RIGHTS. IT'S LITERALLY THE DEFINITION OF "EQUALITY."

Seattleblues, this couple had been using Arlene's Flowers for nine years sending flowers to one another. Baronelle knew quite well they were gay guys courting each other. Why was it okay for her to take their money for nine years, selling her flowers to them while they were dating, and then, suddenly, turn them away when they decide to get married? When the good people of Washington State voted in marriage equality, it became her responsibility, as a business owner to familiarize herself with the law. What, she didn't think eventually gay and lesbian couples might someday use her shop to furnish flowers for their nuptials?

It isn't, by the way, the couple who is suing her, it is the State of Washington's Attorney General's Office. Yes, Baronelle may refuse to serve this beautiful loving couple, but she'd better be willing to accept the consequences of her actions.

She may get the financial support to carry this through; however, there is no moral support to offer her, as it is not moral to discriminate against an entire segment of society.

Using the "F" word like you have done is extremely offensive. It is akin to using the "N" word to describing a person of African American decent. It is extremely classless and unnecessary.

Homosexuals are not special citizens. They are equal citizens, and deserve to be treated as such.

@14 - Yes. Unless something effects them. Then they're Democrats.

YES! YES! YES! So happy Ingersoll and Freed decided to pursue the case! Excellent letter from HCMP -- thanks for posting!

@16

Not really. And FYI both are protected, though by different Constitutional and legislative mechanisms.

Choosing to love those with whom we have drastic differences is more difficult than choosing to believe that your faith is mostly right though. So you're right about that.

Fundamentally, these men weren't denied anything they couldn't get readily, probably within a few miles of this womans shop. So what's the beef, exactly? This wasn't an engineered suit on her behalf, but on theirs. These men wanted to test their right to force others approval commercially and legally of their chosen lifestyle.

Some lessons are harder and more expensive to learn than other lessons. Over the next months, Ms. Stutzman will be discovering the truth of that statement.

OTOH, since she's being so terribly 'persecuted' now, I'm sure she'll feel just that much more Christian. The two things do seem to go together these days, NALT Christians notwithstanding.

@7 - So we should take these cases on an individual basis? What is the threshold for a "nearby" business with comparable services? How long should they be expected to search for an alternate business willing to help them before they have a legitimate complaint?

Just to tweak Seattleblues, let's draw the comparison to segregated diners. By your reasoning, shouldn't the colored people have been content to just go to another diner that would serve them? There must have been plenty of places to eat.

Seattleblues - I hope you enjoy the rock you live under because you will never have any better with your sadly incorrect opinion. Maybe you should move to the south where you can live under a rock with the rest of the sadly mis-informed, opinionated idiots, since Seattle is predominantly a "gay rights" town, you obviously are in the wrong place.

This is really about the statist progressives not believing in private property or the rights that come with it. "You don't really own that business - that money is not really yours. It belongs to the collective, therefore the collective will dictate how you use your private property, and what you think and do on your private property." Statist progressives, please just admit this, then we can proceed with debate on an even playing field. Isn't that what you statist progressives want? An even playing field for all?

Seattleblues - I hope you enjoy the rock you live under because you will never have any better with your sad opinion. Maybe you should move to Texas where you can live under a rock with the rest of the sadly opinionated idiots, since Seattle is predominantly a "gay rights" town.

Seattleblues, what a great argument! by extension, nobody is forcing you or Lil Ms Sour-flowers to live or do business here. Just like there are other florists, there are other states where you can have your needs met more readily. I hear North Dakota has jobs and land... Not much in the way of flowers though.

@26

To play devils advocate for a moment, the general legal view has been that discrimination denies services to some group and as such is unjust. I merely note that in this case such a denial of general service isn't present. Nor is it at all likely.

For a general comparison of why skin color and homosexuality are in no way comparable, see @28.

@23 What is the difference between this and interracial marriage? Funny how many religions changed their fundamental tenets on that issue and then pretended they had been that way all along. Especially the Mormons, where it was written down so explicitly - when they found societal change meant they were pariahs because of their racial bigotry, they suddenly they made sure God sent a message to them it was ok to change...

What a bunch of BS.

seattleblues,

I wouldn't normally waste my time writing to a dumbass like you, but you do know that it's against the law to discriminate against gays in Washington State don't you? Also gays can legally marry in Washington State, thanks to the voters, you knew that too I hope

"Gay Couple Makes Florist Choose Between Supporting Gay Rights or Getting Sued"

Wrong way to frame this. REALLY wrong way to frame this.

She has already committed a violation of the anti-discrimination law that subjects her to legal action. She broke the law and illegally discriminated against the couple. They have every legal right to redress.

They are giving her options on how that could happen.

Your framing of this makes it sound like some sort of protection racket - give our cause money or we'll sue you.

This is more like settling out of court instead of pressing charges against someone who assaulted you.

Selling flowers is no more an expression of free speech than choosing who to allow in your publicly open store is an expression of your freedom of association.

And yes, this is exactly the same as if she had said she wouldn't sell flowers to a black couple because they're black.

So what, black people can always go to the next florist, or the florist or restaurants in "their part of town" or in the next town over where "those sorts of people" can shop without associating with decent white Christian folks.

We've been through this before, and we didn't accept it then. We shouldn't accept it now. She's wrong.

@32 Even though you don't agree with the law, the principal of anti-discrimination in operation is absolutely the same. You are advocating that the government NOT enforce the law.

She has no legitimate business reason for denying them service. Case closed.

@31

I do fine commercially, socially and so on the Eastside.

My neighbors, those in my church and my friends overwhelmingly voted against the misdefinition of marriage perpetrated on Washington this past election. I've had perfectly civil discussions with one friend who supported gay so called marriage, and economics and politics of the left.

This was an engineered lawsuit, as I wrote.

But thanks so much for the concern.

@5 @Seattleblues

I am personally creating an account with the stranger specifically to report your account for abusive behavior, hateful speech, foul language and bigotry. I would recommend that others reading this do the same.

Your intolerance of other people and their right to make their own life choices is sickening. I am personally disgusted by your lack of empathy and kindness. I hope that you can find another outlet for your own suffering other than to attack others, because whom someone loves is not a choice for others to make. Wanting to purchase flowers for a loved on is not as you say demanding to be "special citizens with more rights than others" it's simply assuming there is a degree of equality in the world, especially for a couple in love. I am sorry you are so plagued by hatred and venom, life must be hard to live like you do.

@25, of course the devil is in the details but I do think a case-by-case basis, at least in terms of using the awesome power of the State to mandate that she do business with gay people, is more appropriate. I think @ 11's idea is better than taking her to court.

While I appreciate the righteousness (and I don't mean that snarkily) of people who think she's wrong--using force will be counterproductive.

I gotta start keeping popcorn at work.

@38 Yes, it was engineered. They went through the trouble of buying flowers from her for 9 years. It was really really deep cover.

Idiot.

@38: Referring to it as so called marriage, calling people fags and dykes, yeah sure is civil of you. Now I'm concerned you just don't like democracy! Perpetrated through majority approval?! Engineered lawsuit as opposed to the organic an and blindly just nature of the American courts?! What fucking country do you think this is?

@13 So you're all for sexual orientation being included in anti-discrimination law, you're just not for enforcing it? Please explain.

#32 - When did you choose to be straight?

Religion is a choice. And how you exercise that religion is also a choice. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... or discriminate against someone because they do something you don't like. Which is more Christian?

@46 These days, it's the latter.

I'm tickled by the "artist/free speech" defense her attorneys have cobbled up. Good luck with that one.

Besides the fact they're confusing arts and crafts, they're seeking to establish a conscience loophole where none exists. If a florist is an artist, we need to examine how this is different from other crafts people.

Making fine cabinetry would therefore be an art. Baking and cake decorating? Ditto. Doing auto body work? Sure! That even involves sculpting in durable materials. Sewing, cooking, driving in heavy traffic, running a theater, cutting hair, diagnosing rare diseases, physical therapy, teaching the disabled, trimming pork chops, giving music lessons, gardening, mowing the greens at the golf course... Arts, all of them!

Or, could this simply be an issue of public accommodations and consumer commerce?

Any craft well done is an "art," and we've all met practitioners of their particular craft who were "artists." But, when the cash register comes into play, or sales tax is involved, or a business is open to the public, "free speech" does not extend to discrimination against categories of customer.

Arlene's proprietress is, according to her, "devoutly Christian." The defense theory her attorneys have pulled out of their asses would therefore allow her to discriminate against Jews, Muslims, Hindus and atheists, on the grounds that it offends her religious views.

I predict it must fail.

While I can't say I support the florist's stance since it's an unethical one, I also can't see forcing them to do business when they don't want to.

If I were a part of the couple in question I wouldn't want them supplying anything for my wedding. I'm a bit surprised they continued using them during the last 9 years (unless they were unaware). Yes, I realize they aren't suing the florist directly. The state is doing it on their (and others') behalf. Further to that point, though, let's say they get sued and after we (taxpayers and the florists) all end up spending a ton of money they wind up being forced to provide the service. Are any gay couples honestly going to give these people their money in the future? I sure hope not.

In any case, it certainly could have been said that the florist has the right to refuse service for a number of completely legit reasons... but they kinda screwed that up with stating *why* exactly they couldn't meet the couple's needs. If the florist really wanted to stay clear of this mess they could have simply stated something like "I'm sorry, we're absolutely swamped during that time and I don't think we could provide you with good service. I could recommend this other company who could help you out though."

Even if there was a suit over that it would be incredibly hard to prove their intentions.

Seattleblues creates his whole argument here, and in his head, that homosexuality is a choice. Therefore, all of his subsequent decisions on the topic fall to the 'fact' that it is a choice, and not something people were born with. But Seattleblues doesn't haven any true scientific data on this. He just 'heard that's how it works'. Or he thinks people live their lives with hostility, discrimination, and hatred directed at them a really really 'fun' way to live life. Or something.

But it's more so much comforting to him to feel this is a choice, and so therefore it's *okay* to hate and discriminate against this thing he clearly fears existing in his little world. It's *their* fault he and others are acting this way. Oh! So convenient!

Does he fear it because he's afraid to admit that's the 'choice' he really wants to be able to 'make'? Or because the Bible supposedly tells him too? Does he just fear anything in the world that is different? What is he afraid of? I don't know.

Maybe he just fears that nobody will pay attention to him. Poor little guy.

@51 I would think that florist needs to get out of the florist business if they want to enforce their beliefs through who they will and will not do business with. Businesses do not have a right to discriminate in that way. Period.

SB is cowardly skipping posts directed at him, such as mine @ 17. Usually, that means he was caught in a lie (in this case, his promise to evict his gay tenants in the wake of the legalization of same sex marriage in Washington).

@50 - In his mind, it is indeed a choice. But the only way he could KNOW this is to be a closet case that chooses not to act on his homosexual "impulses". Kinda makes sense, huh?

Oh le regard, le pauvre idiot triste est revenu au Slog. Doit être le printemps.

Watch your mouth with those anti-gay slurs, seattleblues. "Faggots" and "dykes" are not words a decent, upstanding man of God should be saying. But you're not the decent person you think you are.

Stutzman is going to make more money on this lawsuit than she ever did making floral arrangements. She won't win the case, mind you, but she'll be the Belle of the Bigot Ball for quite some time. Paid spots on FoxNews, speaking fees at Tea Party rallies, commencement address at Regent U., etc. Ditto for her lawyers.

He's baaaaaaaack...

And apparently off his meds - again.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls of SLOG I give you, the one, the only, the incomparable and incomprehensible -

SEATTLE BLUES!

Can't believe I'm about to try to get trolled, but I must say it. Seattleblues, this - "To play devils advocate for a moment, the general legal view has been that discrimination denies services to some group and as such is unjust. I merely note that in this case such a denial of general service isn't present. Nor is it at all likely." - is wrong.

Denial of a service is not the "general legal view" of discrimination. You don't need to show lack of access to a service in order for discrimination to be illegal. 'Separate but equal' is not an acceptable status, ethically or constitutionally. This has been true at least since 1954's SCOTUS decision in Brown v Board of Education. In this case, the service is private rather than public, but Washington law protects this couple from discrimination even in the private transaction. Whether you or this asshole florist like it or not, abiding by that law is a cost of doing business in our State. So uh, feel free to exercise your right to GTFO.

This is just becoming the stupidest thing ever.
Why couldn't they just go to another florist and give the rest of us a heads up to boycott this joint?

You want a written apology? Really? Instead this crap is going to be dragged to the courts, and get all the other anti-gay nut jobs all worked up about the threat we pose to their freedom of blah blah blah.

ugh.

@57 I'm kind of hoping that every single dollar of that bigot windfall ends up going to the damages the court is likely to order her to pay.

Foxnews buys the boys a new house. That would be sweet.

I liked Seattleblues more when he was acting like a "straight" Liberace, furiously posting from his secret hideaway in Totally Straight Italy, where his prestigious intellect "seriously" garnered him the keys to the city or maybe just a Vespa.

Give us the hits, SB. Tell us all about your home business, and how much you pay in taxes, and how much you hate Teh Gayz! Also, be sure to mention how TOTALLY STRAIGHT you are, just so nobody thinks you're a little light in your "expensive" loafers!

@60 - Sixty comments is a lot to read, but I'm pretty sure your concerns have been addressed here. In brief:

The law needs to be enforced, or why have a law at all? Having laws saves us the trouble of enacting Mob Justice (which, let's be honest, is what a boycott is) each and every time.

Telling them to just go somewhere else is counterproductive to ensuring the law is enforced. What you're suggesting is a world where businesses can simply put up signs saying "heterosexuals only", and everyone oughta just move along to the next business in hopes that they find one amenable to serving them. The simple fact is that Washington State law does not allow businesses to discriminate like that, and some dumbass out in the middle of nowhere is getting in trouble for breaking the law.

Envision the controversy this way:

Ingersoll and Freed are the florists, rather than the customers (I know, this is a stretch to imagine two gay men being florists). Ms. Stultzman has been a customer of theirs for nine years, and goes into the flower shop to order flowers for her wedding, which is to be an orthodox Roman Catholic wedding. Ingersoll and Freed tell her that they cannot fulfill the order because of her religious beliefs.

Would Ms. Stultzman have a problem with this scenario? We all know the answer to that one, and it proves why she is wrong.

@65 - No, not even if she puts up a sign saying she can. Every time you see a sign like that, remind yourself that it's completely pointless. No sign posted in a business can override anti-discrimination laws.

good; we need to keep the hateful, homophobes and racists in business. Force them to hide their evil dispositions so that they can secretly flourish among us instead of getting kicked to the curb by the market. awesome.

@65:

Only under certain very specific situations: for example, she is not required to provide service to patrons who are disrupting an otherwise peaceful environment, or if a customer comes in five minutes before closing time and demands a large, complicated order, or if the mere presence of a customer exceeds her occupancy limits, etc., etc. But she most certainly CANNOT refuse service to a protected class of patron, which in WA State includes GLBT's, just as she cannot refuse service to minorities, women, Italians, the disabled, or left-handed people, simply because of who they are.

Looks like we're going to get the Supreme Court to decide on the issue anyhow.

If this plays out poorly -- and let's face it, how else is forcing a poor grandma to violate her church instead of buying flowers from the shop next door going to play out? -- then we'll set back the culture war at least ten years.

This isn't the Montgomery Busline. This isn't the lunch counter in Greensboro. If you can't see the difference between those cases and this, you've lived in the magical forest land of the Pacific Northwest too long.

I hope more institutions start coming out of the woodwork and really nail her to the wall. Somebody's gotta be the example that bigoted bullshit will not fly.

@67 -- Most of the country believes a business should have the right to refuse service.

Pick a fight where their stupid business refusal matters. This just looks like bullying.

@5: How about not entering into a career where you KNOW that your religious issues would prevent you from performing a BASIC function? How about just not becoming a pharmacist if you can't handle the idea of giving people Plan B? How about not going into customer service if you can't do something as simple as serve a customer?

@72: And if those people would like their place of business to comply with their personal religious views, then they need to get jobs affiliated with their religious institutions, not jobs where they will be expected to serve the general public.

You do not get to take on a career knowing that you might have to do something that offends your religion and then turn around and cry discrimination when that day comes. Get a job with your damn church.

#66 To be honest, I think I'm just a privileged, caphill-dwelling gay that takes shit for granted. Yes, justice should be served.
But, come on. A written apology?

@28: You need to deal with the fact that the florist made a CHOICE when she CHOSE to break state law with her bigoted actions.

@29: What does a public business have to do with private property and what all are you rambling about?

Sorry grandma.

You should have known forty years ago when you started your business that one day the State of Washington would decide you're not allowed to stay in business if you don't come around fast enough on the second biggest cultural shift in your lifetime.

When you're about to retire.

You're right. The group that rests its argument on Freedom should celebrate its victory by destroying grandma's business because she so stupidly believes she has the right to remain a bigot for a few more years.

@70: If a basic function of grandma's job violates her church, then grandma needs to get herself a new job.

@78: If she cannot keep up with the times, and that includes being able to follow the law, then she's better off retired. It's too bad she's going to drag this out and work on bankrupting herself in the process.

@15, 32: So what if there are other florists they could go to? If she has the right to refuse them service based on her beliefs, so do all the other businesses. Your argument doesn't hold Jell-O, let alone water.

And no, sexual orientation is NOT chosen. I've shown you the evidence, both accidental and experimental, that sexual orientation and gender identity are fixed by early childhood. If you want to feign ignorance, that's your problem. You know the truth, and we here at SLOG know that you know it.

Last time I checked, neither being elderly nor having two generations of offspring constituted a valid legal defense to violating Washington's nondiscrimination statutes. Nor could it be reasonably argued that either such status provides a moral defense, as there is no particular moral virtue in either living long or bearing children. I loved my casually racist Grandma, but I would not have represented her or defended her actions in any fashion had she owned a business and refused to serve blacks or Catholics or gays or Irish.

The law must be applied and enforced equally, for only then is it fair and in keeping with American constitutional requirements.

I'm kind of surprised that SB is allowed to use the "f" word to smear the LGBT community. Would he get away with using the "N" word to demonize Blacks? Or the "K" word to demonize Jews?

He needs to be banned if he cannot speak about gay issues in a civil manner without calling them names.

I'm not understanding six shooter's comments. Are you saying that because she's an old woman, Stutzman should get away with misconduct? What she's doing is against the law in Washington. Is there an exemption in the law for old people?

These guys have every legal and moral right to sue. But it is terrible politics for the cause of equality.

We have it in WA. (Hooray for us!) But most states do not. And now the forces of evil can point to us and say, "See! The first thing "they" do as soon as they get marriage is force good, God-fearing people to violate their 'conscious.'"

Look, I get that this is about the anti-discrimination law, not marriage per se. (Really, I do.) But that is not how it is going to play in Peoria.

I honestly hope I am wrong. But I really do not think that I am.

As a business owner, who pays rent/property taxes, state revenue taxes, provides employment, invests in inventory, pays Labor and Industries taxes, had the sign made, pays for advertising, she should be able to refuse the right to serve ANYONE. Her only mistake is stating that it was because they were gay, She didn't need to say that, and shouldn't have. Yes, it is dumb, stupid, ignorant, and wrong for her to deny services based on the fact that they are gay. She was not required by law to give them a reason as to why they were 86'ed.

The lesson: keep your mouth shut.

@83 - As best as I can tell, The Stranger sides with free speech in regards to He Who Shall Not Be Named. Though they could very easily justify deleting his comments as hate speech, I could not find that as a violation in the Slog Commenting Rules of Conduct. They have not traditionally deleted commentary for one's ideology, regardless how repugnant their beliefs or language might be. Perhaps a Stranger Staffer could elaborate.

Faggots and dykes chose their behavior. Whether they chose their inclinations isn't legally relevant. I may be inclined to punch someone on the nose, but the law doesn't permit me to induldge in the behavior.

Which is why we need to analyze any behavior to determine whether it threatens basic civic utility by materially affecting non-consenting participants.

Choosing to love those with whom we have drastic differences is more difficult than choosing to believe that your faith is mostly right though. So you're right about that.

Neither love nor belief are chosen; one's practice in light of love and/or belief (or the lack of either or both), on the other hand, is. One may love and not act upon it, or act lovingly where no love is present, just as one may observe the tenets of a religion while lacking any epistemic basis for holding it to be true, or, conversely, act in violation of its tenets while believing that its foundational assumptions are sound. But since belief is defined in philosophy as the holding a posit to be true, its volitional responsiveness is quite circumscribed; it may be extra-factual, but not counter-factual, and certainly cannot be entirely counter-intuitive. Likewise, one may learn to appreciate and even have affection for a place, object, or organism to which one is not naturally, chemically, emotionally (or, if you will, spiritually, for lack of a less tediously Platonic word) drawn, and may choose to offer oneself to that place, object, or organism as one would to a beloved, but that's choosing action, not choosing love.

I really look forward to having an ambulance driver dump Seattleblues on his front porch after he suffers a heart attack when the driver finds out he's a Republican. Chosen behavior, you know, and all that.

We make a decision socially and legally that there's manifest injustice in holding someone superior or inferior based on non-chosen personal attributes (gender, skin color or physical handicaps for example) and we have 1st Amendment protection for some chosen classes like faith or the lack thereof and political affilitiation because we believe free expression trumps the abuse of some embracing those classes.

You come dangerously close to actually following these principles to their logical conclusions--free expression, free association, and free exercise of religion necessarily add up to freedom of moral self-determination so far as exercise of that freedom does not materially impinge on the liberty or material well-being of those who have not placed themselves volitionally under the given individual's influence.

This extends to the state conferring or denying material contracts based on distinctions that have no material relevance (like the distinction between a same-sex couple and a for-any-reason infertile or wilfully non-child-bearing heterosexual couple).

I thought Seattleblues was a woman. Huh. Also, I didn't realize he-she came back in March.

Man, seattle(b)loser seems much, much angrier than I remember him. I wonder if it's because of the ruling on the ballot measure. And if so, I wonder what he'll be like once the DOMA ruling is handed down, which has the potential to impact him even LESS! (assuming of course that he gets angry about things at a level inverse to the actual impact it has on his life, which seems to be the case.)

This is all taking place in my hometown where my folks still live and according to the town news this woman refused this service to a customer she had already done business with. It was not set up deliberately like the scopes monkey trial or anything. The woman who is going to get married to her partner just simply thought to use the local flower store she had been going to for some time for her wedding. However, In the context of a same sex wedding all the sudden the business owner decided she would not sell the flowers to the patron. One employee at the business has quit her job over the owners policies because on this since when the owner stated that the employees had to be on the same side of the fence as well (probably also very illegal). To give some more context to this we are talking about a town where a large majority of the population are Sara Palin fans (not joking). This is a part of the country where Sara Palin shows up and there is almost a parade for her each time (not joking). And I'm not just talking about like 4 years ago Palin. They still love her. These are TEA PARTY PEOPLE. A very different demographic than that of the west side of the state. Richland, one one hand is comprised of Scientists and Engineers who work out at the Hanford area (who tend to be (moderate or libertarian) and then hard core Republicans and Tea Party supporters (yes they still exist) who do not want equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples. Having grown up there (20 years) I definitely would say the majority in Richland supports the Woman running the business and I would also say that she is probably seeing more cash come in than ever at this time due to her beliefs and refusal to sell her goods to a gay couple and the appeal that has to the right wing community there. And make no mistake about it, they are trying to send a message that homosexuals are not welcome in the Tri-City area. I certainly hope she is convicted by the state and that she is forced to pay for what she is trying to do to the Gay community there. The notion that this is a poor old lady (old grandma someone said above) who is having to choose between her Jesus and eternal hellfire in her mind is a little off base. She and the local Tri-Cities Tea Party Right are trying to make the gay community feel alienated in Richland. They want to send a message that Homosexuals are not welcome in "their" town. If you refuse a customer service because of their sexual orientation that is discrimination. And is illegal. Lets keep it that way. This is a no-brainer people. c'mon.

This is all taking place in my hometown where my folks still live and according to the town news this woman refused this service to a customer she had already done business with. I definitely would say the majority in Richland supports the Woman running the business and I would also say that she is probably seeing more cash come in than ever at this time due to her beliefs and refusal to sell her goods to a gay couple and the appeal that has to the right wing community there. And make no mistake about it, they are trying to send a message that homosexuals are not welcome in the Tri-City area. I certainly hope she is convicted by the state and that she is forced to pay for what she is trying to do to the Gay community there. It was not set up deliberately like the scopes monkey trial or anything. The woman who is going to get married to her partner just simply thought to use the local flower store she had been going to for some time again for her wedding. However, In the context of a same sex wedding all the sudden the business owner decided she would not sell the flowers to the patron. One employee at the business has quit her job over the owners policies because on this since when the owner stated that the employees had to be on the same side of the fence as well (probably also very illegal). To give some more context to this we are talking about a town where a large majority of the population are Sara Palin fans (not joking). This is a part of the country where Sara Palin shows up and there is almost a parade for her each time (not joking). And I'm not just talking about like 4 years ago Palin. They still love her. These are TEA PARTY PEOPLE. A very different demographic than that of the west side of the state. Richland, one one hand is comprised of Scientists and Engineers who work out at the Hanford area (who tend to be (moderate or libertarian) and then hard core Republicans and Tea Party supporters (yes they still exist) who do not want equal rights for Gay and Lesbian couples. Having grown up there (20 years) The notion that this is a poor old lady (old grandma someone said above) who is having to choose between her Jesus and eternal hellfire in her mind is a little off base. She and the local Tri-Cities Tea Party Right are trying to make the gay community feel alienated in Richland. They want to send a message that Homosexuals are not welcome in "their" town. If you refuse a customer service because of their sexual orientation that is discrimination. And is illegal. Lets keep it that way. This is a no-brainer people. c'mon.

I'm really kind of confused by this whole thing.

Yeah, the couple in question are well within their rights to sue. And they'll probably win.

But really, what's the point? Will this change Stutzman's views? Or anyone else's? How do these lawsuits make life better for any of the parties? (Except, of course, the lawyers).

This entire episode is a perfect illustration of what happens when everyone decides they want to be an asshole. Stutzman was an asshole first of course. But really, why couldn't Ingersoll and Freed have just said, "We're sorry you feel that way. We'll go someplace else."? Why bring in lawyers? Are Stutzman's arrangements really all that great? And, at this point, would they even trust Stutzman with the job?

Or have they just decided to get all huffy about Stutzman being an asshole and now they just want to get her good? If that's the case, and I suspect that it is, then they're assholes too.

Honestly, chimpanzees throwing feces are operating on a higher ethical plane than everyone involved here. What ever happened to being the better person?

Do we really want to live in a society where we have to call in the lawyers over every single little perceived slight?

And is this really what the gay community is about these days? Suing florists? If so, we really need to get a life.

In addition, I am almost certain that the store owners legal expenses will be taken care of by a local Right wing rally of support and funding. To the locals this store owner is seen as a victim and a hero. For further context pick up a copy of the Tri-City Herald and check out the letters to the editor section.

This "story" isn't about gays. It is social engineering.

The "story" represents the efforts of institutions such as the A. K. Rice Institute For the Study of Social Systems in Rainier, WA, and also the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, UK.

These institutions represent and carry out the political and social agendas of those who control the world's economies and resources -- central bankers.

Central bankers seek worldwide "soft" communism. This is good for ensuring their monopolistic profits and power continue, without obstacles.

Historically, it is a social requirement to demoralize a society in order to pave the way for communism. Please check Yuri Bezmenov's (ex-KGB propaganda expert) work on this topic. Also check Joan Veon and Niki Raapana.

Demoralization includes the destruction of traditions and cultural norms -- marriage, family, religion, health, etc. This attack ultimately forces the individual to rely on the State, rather than their family.

Social engineering folks. Get acquainted.

@70
Yes, it is the Montgomery bus, and yes, it is the Greensboro lunch counter.

Black people could ride the buses as long as they sat in the right seats and gave them up to the better people if they were asked to. Black people could just go to a restaurant that served their kind - it's not like they couldn't get food, and why would they want to eat somewhere that didn't want to serve them in the first place?

Yes, flowers are, in the grand scheme of things, far more trivial than food or transportation, but that isn't the point. The important point is that it wouldn't stop at flowers, and it wouldn't stop at weddings. If you can refuse to provide a service to someone because you disapprove of what they do when they aren't in your store, then you can refuse them medical care, you can refuse them food, you can refuse them housing. You can refuse to let them adopt the children that the state is paying you to place with qualified parents. You can refuse to provide artificial insemination, or legal services. You can refuse to issue a marriage license and make them drive to the next county.

The florist is doing this because she thinks she can get away with it because the law doesn't apply to her. If she does get away with it, all it will prove is that she was right. And if you think it will simply end with Washington State florists considering serving gay weddings to be optional, you haven't been paying any attention.

Yes, if I knew a florist was a homophobe, I'd shop elsewhere. But that doesn't mean I should be forced to.

Yes, perhaps "arranging flowers is an act of personal expression", but Ms. Stutzman doesn't arrange flowers as an act of personal expression - she arranges flowers as an act of commerce.

@99 Aww, 5280, it's nice to get to know you better.

Adultery is prohibited by one of the ten commandments. Does she check whether any flowers she sells are from, eg, straight men to their 'other women', or to bamboozle their deceived wives?

@seattleblues: the problem is running a florist's shop is not religious expression, and therefore freedom of religion does not give one a right to discriminate against others on the basis of a disagreement their theological or moral beliefs. A florist's shop is not a Church. Your religious freedom to discriminate does not extend beyond the sanctuary door.

Just as you cannot discriminate against this woman for being a religious bigot, similarly you cannot discriminate against these "fags" for their belief that same-sex marriage is morally acceptable.

Your "chick-fil-a" fantasy won't survive either - didn't work out for that vicious troll James O'Keefe either.

@84: these people have been looking for a fight like this - and they want to run to the court while they still have a 5 member conservative majority. The AG and the ACLU are smart and right to engage - it would be bad politics if they were trying to force a church (some religious institution) to allow a marriage, but that's not what is happening.

This just so got me thinking about religion as being a choice- Ive never really though of that before. Its so amazing to me to think that the religious out there always say we chose to be this way- but we never come back with- well you chose your religion- you werent born that way, its not a culture- it was a mental choice- albeit more like a brainwashing......

Everybody read @100.

And whoever gives out the points, please give a few to @100.