Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
B3L13v3R

Florist Arlene Stutzman moves on to the U.S. Supreme Court

Recommended Posts


Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Ruling Declaring Florist Must Service ‘Gay Weddings’

From a portion of the newsletter, emphasis mine:

We had gone to Arlene’s for many years and enjoyed her service. She did a great job for us, so it was just natural for us to go there to have her do our flowers,” Freed told KUOW radio.
Stutzman stated that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event, but referred him to three other florists that could be of assistance.
I just took his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” (the florist) Stutzman told reporters.
But after Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue—both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments.
“It blew way out of proportion,” Stutzman explained. “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 all their friends.”

"...Rob Ingersoll and I have been friends since very nearly the first time he walked into my shop all those years ago,” Stutzman said in a statement following the decision. “There was never an issue with his being gay, just as there hasn’t been with any of my other customers or employees. He just enjoyed my custom floral designs, and I loved creating them for him.”

“But now the state is trying to use this case to force me to create artistic expression that violates my deepest beliefs and take away my life’s work and savings, which will also harm those who I employ,” she continued. I’m not asking for anything that our Constitution hasn’t promised me and every other American: the right to create freely, and to live out my faith without fear of government punishment or interference.”

Stutzman now plans to appeal her case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thoughts on this:

After being defeated by the Washington State Supreme Court, Arlene Stutzman now plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We can prayerfully hope the U.S. Supreme Court would side in her favor.

The real tragedy of this was the men wanting to force the florist Arlene Stutzman to "provide the floral arrangements to decorate the (homosexual false marriage) event."
 
Thereby violating her faith and conscience that stems from her relationship with Jesus Christ, as well as her Constitutional rights that thus far continue to be tread upon.

She had been friends with them from the onset, and was happy to continue to serve them coming into the floral shop as they had for years.
She politely referred the homosexuals to three other florists that could assist them in decorating their "event."
This was not good enough for Mr. Ingersoll and his male partner.

The "love" reflected from much of the homosexual/sodomite community and their sympathizers show their sinful hypocrisy as well.  Hate mail, wanting to burn her building, threatening and angry comments, people assuring her they will not shop with her anymore, and telling all of their friends.

The LGBTQ (and likely soon to be IBP I would think) continue to push their sinful agenda, looking to force it onto any and all that oppose them.

Those who stand with morality, that stems from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ know the answer for every sinner, including these men and women who sin against their bodies.
Like all of lost humanity, repentance of their sins, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is their only answer. God will not only forgive them, but as new creatures in Christ, give them His strength to lead  them out from their destructive sinful lifestyles.

Way too many churches continue to be silent on these very issues, and other sinful issues covered well by the Bible.
Those who preach need to get back to proclaiming the Gospel in it's fullness, that those held captive by the enemy may be set free!

Genesis 2:21-25
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

Hebrews 13:4  Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers (And every other sexual sin) God will judge.

1Co 6:18  Flee fornication. (And every other sexual sin.)  Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication (And every other sexual sin) sinneth against his own body. 

2Corinthians 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A different perspective on the sin of LGBT, perhaps a bit strong in it's thinking as the Christian is not being martyred yet in the U.S.
However, the columnist does capture the mean spiritedness behind the LGBT movement, that "for now" only wants to silence us and remove all our belongings as "punishment" for those with a Christian business.

As we pray for those who are ruling over the nation, it would be great if President Trump would quickly move on protecting the religious liberty of those who do not side with the sin of LGBT.

In my preaching against this sin, I've had more than a few "hateful looks" my way, some looks that would kill, all the while pleading with them to repent of their sins and believe on Jesus Christ!
Praying the Supreme Court not only takes her case, but, by a miracle of God, would side in her favor. 

_______________________________________________________

Grandmother a victim of modern-day Kristallnacht

"The Nazis targeted the Jews ... modern-day Brownshirts target Christians. The only difference now is that the weapon of choice for homosexual activists is a gavel rather than a lead pipe. For those activists, it's not about equality – it's about supremacy.
Bryan Fischer - Guest Columnist

The homosexual fascists of the LGBT movement have claimed another scalp in their relentless quest to purge Christians from what the Washington State Supreme Court called "the commercial marketplace." While the target of the Nazis was the Jews, Christians are the target of the modern day Brownshirts. The only difference is that the weapon of choice for homosexual activists is a gavel rather than a lead pipe.

Baronelle Stutzman is a grandmother with a sweet demeanor who has never been accused by anyone of unkindness or incivility. Yet yesterday the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously labeled her a hate-filled homophobic bigot.

Her crime? Politely declining to use her artistic talent to promote same-sex marriage. The two homosexual men who approached her to do a floral arrangement for their "wedding" were valued customers of Ms. Stutzman, even friends, proof that she did not discriminate against them or anyone else. She even recommended nearby florists who would be happy to help them.

But her own conscience, animated by foundational Christian and biblical principle, would not permit her to promote same-sex marriage. As a consequence, the Snidely Whiplash of the Evergreen State, attorney general Bob Ferguson, literally sued her for everything she owns. Although he had to grit his teeth and settle for a fine, Ferguson wanted not just to take the assets of her business but her personal assets as well. It was his goal to strip her – a 70-year-old grandmother – of her business, her possessions, her bank accounts, and her house and leave her homeless and naked on the curb.

Ferguson at one point said Ms. Stutzman's First Amendment rights have not been violated because she can still believe whatever she wants about homosexual marriage. But Ferguson is wrong. The First Amendment does not just protect the freedom to believe Christian principle – it protects the freedom to act on it.

The specific guarantee is for the "free exercise" of religion, a constitutional right American Christians possess 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including the time they spend running a business. It is an inalienable right they have received from the Creator – which means no earthly authority, including the Washington State Supreme Court, has the constitutional or moral authority to take it away from anyone.

"...We as a culture must understand that, to put it colloquially, this is a duel to the death. The conflict between religious liberty and homosexuality is a zero-sum game. In every clash, somebody wins and somebody loses. Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty. We cannot have both special rights based on homosexual behavior and religious liberty at the same time. One will be forced to give way to the other.

One of the plaintiffs claimed he was happy to be on the "right side of history." Well, the issue is not being on the right side of history; it's being on the right side of right. It's being on the right side of the Constitution, and it's being on the right side of God's moral law. The Washington Supreme Court isn't.

Ms. Stutzman has appealed her case to the Supreme Court. Even if the Court takes the case, the same five unelected lawyers who imposed same-sex marriage on the country are still there, and certainly will be sharpening their gavels to stick it to this grandmother as soon as they get the chance.

President Trump, in the run-up to the election you pledged that you would protect religious liberty, that you would be a champion for Christians whose rights to the free exercise of religion are being trampled on a daily basis in this country. Here is your chance to prove that wasn't just an empty campaign promise. Direct your attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to draft the mother of all amicus briefs to support Ms. Stutzman in her appearance before the Supreme Court.

And issue your executive order on religious liberty. NOW. Don't wait another day.
It's masterfully crafted, and will make you and your administration the friend of religious liberty instead of its enemy. If you sign it and issue it, it will instantly become the Magna Carta of religious liberty for this generation.

There is no time to waste. How many more grandmothers will have to face the loss of everything they own before their president comes to their side?"


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine she'd lose her case at the highest bench. But we'll see. 

And rightly so in my opinion. Because the snowball effect this special privilege would result in would be a nightmare in this diverse secular society that is America. If any group based on their religious or spiritual or personal bias could refuse service to anyone at all, imagine the chaos we'd all suffer. 

You're not Muslim, you enter a bakery owned by Muslims. You're a woman wearing jeans and a tee shirt and no headscarf. You're refused service because you're not dressed according to proper attire rules under Sharia law in Islam. 

You're not Jewish but you enter a Jewish butcher shop or a bakery. You're refused because you're a gentile. 

This happened in Minnesota years ago: Muslim cab drivers refused to pick up passengers who were carrying alcohol,had a service dog with them, or were women scantily dressed. The Muslim cabbies went to court to fight for the right to discriminate in that way. And lost. To placate their outrage the airport installed a foot bath for their use. 

 

The point being, where's it stop if we're all entitled based on our own prejudices to refuse service to people who patronize our business? 
When instead we can take the opportunity to minister to people just by being Christ like in business. Jesus didn't go all hoidy toidy dealing with sinners, the possessed, the outcasts. He sought them out and healed them. 

Would Jesus refuse to make a bouquet for a gay couple's wedding? It's not approving the wedding. It's providing a service as a florist. 

Same with everything else we think we can refuse to do for others because of our relationship with Jesus Christ. Imagine how that looks. I'm a bigot because of my relationship with Jesus Christ. :blink: 

Jesus doesn't know you. Besides, how we live the covenant Jesus delivered to this world is ministering the teachings of Jesus all the time. If we act like Hell how do we lead people to Heaven? 

It's God's job to judge at the end of a persons life. Not ours. But God will judge us as to how we carried his son's name into the world when we have the example Christ gave us as to how he comported himself among the sinners of his day. Jesus didn't refuse to heal because someone wasn't a Jew. He didn't refuse to feed any one of the masses that arrived to hear his sermon on the mountain because he judged them unclean. 

How can we treat people differently than Christ did and represent his ministry? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2017 at 5:10 PM, Jewels7 said:

I would imagine she'd lose her case at the highest bench. But we'll see. 

And rightly so in my opinion. Because the snowball effect this special privilege would result in would be a nightmare in this diverse secular society that is America. If any group based on their religious or spiritual or personal bias could refuse service to anyone at all, imagine the chaos we'd all suffer. 

You're not Muslim, you enter a bakery owned by Muslims. You're a woman wearing jeans and a tee shirt and no headscarf. You're refused service because you're not dressed according to proper attire rules under Sharia law in Islam. 

You're not Jewish but you enter a Jewish butcher shop or a bakery. You're refused because you're a gentile. 

This happened in Minnesota years ago: Muslim cab drivers refused to pick up passengers who were carrying alcohol,had a service dog with them, or were women scantily dressed. The Muslim cabbies went to court to fight for the right to discriminate in that way. And lost. To placate their outrage the airport installed a foot bath for their use. 

 

The point being, where's it stop if we're all entitled based on our own prejudices to refuse service to people who patronize our business? 
When instead we can take the opportunity to minister to people just by being Christ like in business. Jesus didn't go all hoidy toidy dealing with sinners, the possessed, the outcasts. He sought them out and healed them. 

Would Jesus refuse to make a bouquet for a gay couple's wedding? It's not approving the wedding. It's providing a service as a florist. 

Same with everything else we think we can refuse to do for others because of our relationship with Jesus Christ. Imagine how that looks. I'm a bigot because of my relationship with Jesus Christ. :blink: 

Jesus doesn't know you. Besides, how we live the covenant Jesus delivered to this world is ministering the teachings of Jesus all the time. If we act like Hell how do we lead people to Heaven? 

It's God's job to judge at the end of a persons life. Not ours. But God will judge us as to how we carried his son's name into the world when we have the example Christ gave us as to how he comported himself among the sinners of his day. Jesus didn't refuse to heal because someone wasn't a Jew. He didn't refuse to feed any one of the masses that arrived to hear his sermon on the mountain because he judged them unclean. 

How can we treat people differently than Christ did and represent his ministry? 

Just for the sake of discussion, have you ever considered the more 'libertarian' (small L) view in matters such as this?

First - think back to the civil rights era of the 1950s and 60s.  Blacks were denied the basics - housing; jobs; etc - simply based on their race.  Hopefully most of us here - as Christians - know that this was wrong and can agree it was an issue that government needed to address.

Laws are now in place to prevent discrimination BASED ON RACE.  That is as it should be.

Unfortunately, attempts to apply the precedent set by the civil rights era of years ago have been used to legitimize what once were thought of as deviancies and perversions.  

Dr. King must be spinning in his grave.

But since this is a secular society, perhaps a more libertarian philosophy can guide us going forward.  

If I enter a Jewish bakery and am not served because I am not Jewish, there are other bakeries I can use.  If a woman wearing non-Muslim clothing hails a cab and is denied by the Muslim cab driver, she can hail the next cab.

If a homosexual couple is denied a service by a Christian baker or florist, can they not find another bakery or flower shop?  Heck - they may even find another Christian owned business - since not even all Christians are in agreement on this.

These are not potential 'life and death' situations like jobs and housing.  
Should not the 'solutions' then involve the least government necessary or needed?

Blessings,

-Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Just for the sake of discussion, have you ever considered the more 'libertarian' (small L) view in matters such as this?

First - think back to the civil rights era of the 1950s and 60s.  Blacks were denied the basics - housing; jobs; etc - simply based on their race.  Hopefully most of us here - as Christians - know that this was wrong and can agree it was an issue that government needed to address.

Laws are now in place to prevent discrimination BASED ON RACE.  That is as it should be.

Unfortunately, attempts to apply the precedent set by the civil rights era of years ago have been used to legitimize what once were thought of as deviancies and perversions.  

Dr. King must be spinning in his grave.

But since this is a secular society, perhaps a more libertarian philosophy can guide us going forward.  

If I enter a Jewish bakery and am not served because I am not Jewish, there are other bakeries I can use.  If a woman wearing non-Muslim clothing hails a cab and is denied by the Muslim cab driver, she can hail the next cab.

If a homosexual couple is denied a service by a Christian baker or florist, can they not find another bakery or flower shop?  Heck - they may even find another Christian owned business - since not even all Christians are in agreement on this.

These are not potential 'life and death' situations like jobs and housing.  
Should not the 'solutions' then involve the least government necessary or needed?

Blessings,

-Ed

I would say that is why president Trump is scaling back so as to allow certain restrictions or permissions to be a matter for the states. Like with the scale back on the Transsexual bathroom rule for public schools in America. A Federalist model. 

However, with matters of consenting adult intercourse it is a secular matter being the government is not a theocratic state. I wouldn't know if someone is homosexual unless or until I was owner of a florist shop. Or a bakery. Or a bed and breakfast. Or a hardware store. Or a kitchen boutique. 

If I'm in business I am in business to make money. And if I am a Christian I am the living example of Christ and his behavior. 

Sorry , I only refuse service to one type of sinner. OUT! 

Now wait, it'll come to me, that scripture wherein that common English sentence there is found in God's word. No, don't tell me, It'll come to me annny minute now. 

Meanwhile, there I am shopping in a candle store. Looooove candles. Beeswax only please. :D  And I'm wearing this gorgeous white tee shirt that has printed on the back, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus replied. 

And the shop owner who I would not know is homosexual refuses to sell me this large five wick pillar candle. Because he doesn't like that I'm a Christian, female, straight. 

If we can discriminate because of who we imagine someone chooses to love, how do we defend doing so by claiming after or before that God is Love? And so too is the good news of Jesus ? 

I'll discriminate against you and refuse to serve you because you're homosexual . I judge your sin in the name of Jesus. 
When it isn't my place. It's God's. And as I judge so too will I be judged. When all is as God willed it to be being all knowing eternal spirit, how do I think I'm qualified to do his job for him here? 
Where it's all planned out. Including whom God knows as his own and whom God does not. 

I can be an example , a lighthouse, for that homosexual who is. Unless I hide my candle under a bushel basket and let the darkness speak to them . When I say, I am sorry I cannot serve you. Because you're homosexual and that's the one kind of sinner I can rebuke in the name of the gospel that saves. 

(Except for saving that person from the embarrassment of my remarks. Of my discrimination. Of my acting as other than Christ did or told me to do. Salvation ? Exampled by someone who leads, beckons the truth of Jesus Christ to others by that example? Really?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jewels7 said:

However, with matters of consenting adult intercourse it is a secular matter being the government is not a theocratic state. I wouldn't know if someone is homosexual unless or until I was owner of a florist shop. Or a bakery. Or a bed and breakfast. Or a hardware store. Or a kitchen boutique. 

If I'm in business I am in business to make money. And if I am a Christian I am the living example of Christ and his behavior. 

Sorry , I only refuse service to one type of sinner. OUT! 

 

Exactly.  The government is SECULAR - it has no business INTERFERING (one side or the other) in religious matters or ceremonies.  It should not have any business re: 'straight' marriage either, but that ship has sailed.  Does the government regulate baptisms?  Does it decide who receives Communion?

If you're a Christian and you have no problem catering a ceremony other Christians might find offensive, then good for you.  Other Christians MAY object to the ceremony.  Guess what - if they do, they can send the business to you. (note:  it's the CEREMONY they may find offensive, not necessarily the participants.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.  You know)

It's not about 'gay weddings' or 'riding in a cab' or 'shopping in a store while wearing a Christian T-shirt'.  It's about business owners running their businesses the way they see fit.  Government's role should be very, very limited.  In very rare situations, where someone is actually harmed. 

The homosexual couple can find plenty of bakeries to do their cake.  There are plenty of cabs and plenty of stores in the mall.  No one is being harmed by one's refusal to do business.

For me, it's not even a matter of 'imposing' my morality. Personally, if I were a Christian business owner, I'd accept the business.  For me, it's a 'what's the government role' issue.  Like you, I'm concerned with the 'slippery slope' argument.  I just see the danger working the other way.

Blessings,

-Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Exactly.  The government is SECULAR - it has no business INTERFERING (one side or the other) in religious matters or ceremonies.  It should not have any business re: 'straight' marriage either, but that ship has sailed.  Does the government regulate baptisms?  Does it decide who receives Communion?

If you're a Christian and you have no problem catering a ceremony other Christians might find offensive, then good for you.  Other Christians MAY object to the ceremony.  Guess what - if they do, they can send the business to you. (note:  it's the CEREMONY they may find offensive, not necessarily the participants.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.  You know)

It's not about 'gay weddings' or 'riding in a cab' or 'shopping in a store while wearing a Christian T-shirt'.  It's about business owners running their businesses the way they see fit.  Government's role should be very, very limited.  In very rare situations, where someone is actually harmed. 

The homosexual couple can find plenty of bakeries to do their cake.  There are plenty of cabs and plenty of stores in the mall.  No one is being harmed by one's refusal to do business.

For me, it's not even a matter of 'imposing' my morality. Personally, if I were a Christian business owner, I'd accept the business.  For me, it's a 'what's the government role' issue.  Like you, I'm concerned with the 'slippery slope' argument.  I just see the danger working the other way.

Blessings,

-Ed

The thing is, not a lot of Christians that think they have every right to choose to discriminate at will are willing to feel what it is like to be discriminated against because they're Christian.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could go for pages you realize.

My view is that the USSC overstepped in using its authority to write law outside what was protected under the 10th amendment for the states already.

Race isn't a behavior or a birth effect. Homosexuality and transpersona is. If the highest court says aberrant behaviors are equal to non-aberrant then those who have been sick and contained for generations are going to see their opportunity. And like any persona that means there are going to be those that are radical and those that are sedate and open without offense.

The radicals in this LGBT movement aren't pro-homo. They're anti-Christian. Because it was the Christian ideology that applied the secular laws to reflect the religious one man one woman marriage identity.

If that whole thing can be obliterated now anything goes! The drive to create the sequel to Sodom.

And the first way to make the biggest steps after being deemed equal and it illegal to call them sick is to go to court again at the Christian's expense and fight for the right to stop her from saying her religion doesn't agree that "I" am normal.

 

That's what this is all about. It's not about equality it's about payback. Gays network. They know who owns businesses and are gay. And they also in this case would know what a very good friend believes about their life and under the tenets of their God. They're a fighter. This case is being brought at the Christians court cost and she's actually working to promote the gay agenda that's following that train to more rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BacKaran

I have to disagree with this note

:  it's the CEREMONY they may find offensive, not necessarily the participants.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.  You know)

Hate the sin love the sinner?

The Bible doesn't say that, it states hate the sin and the unrepentant sinner and pray for their conversion.

Not hate the sin and love the unrepentant sinner anyways.

Love one another refers to born again Christians loving other Christians, repentant sinners. The Bible is book for believers, not non repenting unbelievers although they use it to for their agenda.

The ceremony is just as offensive as the homosexual who chooses to do perverted acts against God. It's an abomination against a holy God, I am called to give them the gospel message and if they reject it, (as all non repentant homos do... Otherwise they'd be a repentant sinner who's repentant and has stopped choosing that lifestyle. )...

I am told to move on by Paul to those who will hear and heed His word. 

I love them from a far but I can't fellowship with them and I should not be forced to make a homo cake or flower display but each other should be free to sell to whom they wish.

Remember, no shoes, no shirts, no service? It used to be  on business doors everywhere, now the PC people think they can enforce believers to go against their beliefs but let Muslams and the homosexuals demand services from a believer?

I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Sanctified52
      I didn't see any chat rooms for single women who are Christian and struggle with homosexuality and pornography. This problem exists among Christian women more than anyone wants to admit. It's is an excruciating painful and at times those struggling with these issue contemplate suicide at the thought of failing God. I need a Chat room to talk about how to find the strength to STOP satisfying sexual desires this way. This is a tremendous challenge as I am 52, single never married, still a virgin, and no children. I saved myself for marriage but it never happened.  Single, and especially older Christian women are required by God to be celibate, this is the challenge. Please allow this Chat room. 
    • By Godfearingfeminist
      Hi, I'm Rycee. I'm 20 years old, from the UK. This year's been pretty rough and I've been wanting to go to church for months, but reluctant to join one since I relocate a lot, so I thought I'd try this out instead. Any career/marriage advice is appreciated, thanks 🙂
    • By wombat
      I would like to request prayer for a righteous resolution to a pending  divorce and yes children are involved.
      We ask for healing of confusion, hurt feelings,  misunderstandings,  and for  obedience to the Scriptures so that the marriage can remain intact and flourish for Gods glory.
      We wish to prevent the divorce and any custody issues. Help me to be the best husband to my wife and a great father to our children.
    • By Worship Warriors
      I wish to obtain approval to post this link on a post: its a trailer ( 0.28 seconds)
       
       
       
                         
    • By Omegaman 3.0
      We had recently here as Worthy had a spirited discussion about homosexuality and discrimination in the church. The nature of the discussion did not allow for too much thoroughness in related issues, and the theology around them. I was cruising YouTube this morning, and coincidentally, this topic came up in the recommended for you suggestions, probably because I have watched some Walter Martin videos.
      Anyway, I found them informational and helpful, in understanding some of the issues and background to these topics. There are several views represented, and they are moderated, so it does not get out of control. So, for you consideration are the following four videos:
       
       
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...