Anti-Gay Washington Florist Appeals To SCOTUS

The Associated Press reports:

A florist from Washington state is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the state’s high court which concluded she violated the law by refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

Lawyers for Barronelle Stutzman on Friday contended the state Supreme Court decision violated her First Amendment protection for artistic expression. Her attorneys contend the 72-year-old Stutzman should not have to surrender her freedom in order to run her family business.

In February, the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Stutzman broke the state’s anti-discrimination law. She contended that providing flowers for a same-sex marriage would violate her religious beliefs. But the state court held that providing flowers would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

From the Alliance Defending Freedom:

For more than four years, Barronelle has endured the litigation in this case with unwavering grace, humility, and faith – even as she faces losing everything she owns. Now she will take her last stand before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to preserve her religious freedom and her right not to be forced to speak a message about marriage that violates her beliefs.

It’s hardly disputed that artistic expression, such as floral art, is speech. The Washington State Attorney General admitted as much. So, the real issue here is whether the state can compel her to speak a government-mandated message. The state claims that it has the right to do so – that it has the right to go after a 72-year-old grandmother for everything she owns just because what she believes does not fall in line with the state’s political agenda.

But that is blatantly unconstitutional. If the government can demand that we speak a certain message or be punished, that should concern us all. That puts not just Barronelle’s freedom at stake, but everyone’s. So, we are asking the Supreme Court to uphold Barronelle’s First Amendment rights.

The ADF, which openly advocates for criminalizing homosexuality, is already representing the Colorado baker whose case will be heard by the US Supreme Court later this year.

  • dcurlee

    Honey trust me you don’t appeal to anyone

    • Reality.Bites

      Scalia killed himself to avoid her

      • Hue-Man

        Obama killed Scalia but at Scalia’s request!

        • bzrd

          lot of good that did us

    • Guest

      Looks like she has grabbed a few putty-tats in her day too……

  • FAEN

    You’re a business-you either sell to everyone or no one. You can’t pick and choose based on who you think Jeebus loves or not.

    • Wesinoregon

      And yet they preach that Jesus loves everyone.

    • dcurlee

      The thing that gets me is she has no problem selling them flowers for years.

    • dcurlee

      The thing that gets me is she had no problem taking the couples money for years for flowers

      • FAEN

        Yep! And let’s not forget she also sold flowers to divorced people. Last time I checked that was a no no according to HER religion.

      • netxtown

        Did she really think they weren’t fucking before marriage???

      • DonnaLee

        As well as couples dating I’m sure, who are Fornicating!!

    • Cackalaquiano

      It seems logical that it would come down to the message. You can’t compel a specific message. You must make a cake, but you’re not required to write “[dude] and [dude] forever” on it. She’ll have to sell the flowers, but not required to write “Happy Gay Wedding from Baronelle” on them.
      I’m being snarky and serious at the same time. Same thing with, say, the Klan coming in for a cake. Make the cake, leave off “Whites Forever” on top.

      • Marty Eble

        Exactly. If the shop has 12 pre-baked white icinged cakes, and you want one, they can’t not sell it to you because you’re black, white, a Muslim, or a lesbian.

        If you want “Happy Marriage Bob and Charlie” written on it, the issues change.

      • FAEN

        But she won’t bake the cake or give them flowers to decorate or arrange. That’s the difference.

        • Cackalaquiano

          Precisely.

    • Marty Eble

      If you’re an artist, you can pick and choose what expressive conduct you’ll engage in.

      • FAEN

        LOL-she isn’t an artist.

        • Marty Eble

          Floral arranging is an art. In Japan it is called Ikebana or kado, one of the three classical Japanese arts of refinement.

          http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersCertPetition.pdf

          The petitioner has been arranging flowers for forty years, and goes through an elaborate vetting process with her clients to ensure that the message they deliver is artfully expressed.

          • FAEN

            She. Is. Not. An. Artist.

          • Marty Eble

            In your opinion. But you don’t get a vote.

            The SCOTUS seems to conclude that whether or not what she does is art, and whether it is expressive, is up to the artist, not you, not to the State of Washington.

          • FAEN

            And in your opinion she is. And she isn’t.

  • Bob_Barnes

    “…her First Amendment protection for artistic expression”

    What the hell does that even mean?

    • FAEN

      Its word salad BS.

    • Michael White

      religious “freedom” doesn’t work any more so they are trying other ways to discriminate against us.

    • The_Wretched

      Religion law based on the Separation of Church and State clauses have historically (on net) gone against the religious bigots who want to use their religion as an excuse to get out of liability for illegal discrimination.

      As such, they have changed over to a legal theory that gives them a new bite at the apple. That their religious actions are “free speech.” “Free Speech” in the US is currently a bit of a legal trump card and way overpowered. They want to say that their religion is 24/7 and every action (even pooping) is in the name of Jesus, as such, every action is a religious one and a free speech oppertunity. The message being ‘I discriminate in the name of Jesus, hallilouya. ‘

      They win when they get a sympathetic nut job for a judge.

      • David in Palm Springs

        “They win when they get a sympathetic nut job for a judge… or US attorney general… or (so-called) president.”

    • Marty Eble

      Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991).

  • Skokieguy [Larry]

    Anti abortion activists have been successful in getting laws passed that require doctors to read medically false information to patients seeking an abortion. Democrats tried to insert and amendment that the the information must be medically accurate. The amendment was defeated.

    So ‘compelled speech’ is just fine – when the lies dispensed serve a religious agenda.

    https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/nz88gx/a-state-by-state-list-of-the-lies-abortion-doctors-are-forced-to-tell-women

    • prixator

      Do you know if those requirements have been tested in court? Doesn’t sound Constitutional.

      • Skokieguy [Larry]

        I would agree its completely illegal. How can a woman make an informed decision if she is given medically false info. But I couldn’t find where the laws have been successfully challenged. Since they are red states, and until recently we had a split Scotus (and now worse) perhaps there’s hesitancy to push these cases right now?

        “Nonethe-less, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 ruled in favor of abortion-specific informed consent mandates in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. In upholding Pennsyl-vania’s law requiring preabortion counseling, the Court said such mandates are permissible as long as the information the law requires to be given to the woman is “truthful and nonmisleading.”

        . There’ more interesting info in the article I excerpted from. Linky: https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/10/misinformed-consent-medical-accuracy-state-developed-abortion-counseling-materials

        • prixator

          It also is almost certainly unconstitutional from the doctors’ perspective – being compelled by law to convey what they believe to be lies to their patients, without being able to state that they are lies.

          Republicans and christianists are horrible people. I don’t know how they live with themselves.

    • DonnaLee

      I’ve seen a few videos where the doctor is telling the women the lies about abortions, and then telling them the truth right afterwards, and explaining that the lying parts were mandated by law.

  • bambinoitaliano
  • MBear

    Oh honey – there are artists, and creative people, and people who are extremely excellent at what they do.

    You are none of these.

    • Marty Eble

      You’ve been to Arlene’s and speak from experience?

      Or is this simple cattiness?

  • Butch

    So you have the choice of “losing everything” or just getting over yourself and following the damn law.

    • Chucktech

      “Losing everything” is entirely her choice. Her initial “loss” was a $2000 fine and a slap on the wrist saying “don’t do this anymore.” It’s she who dug in her obstinate christian heels to go for broke.

      • Vista-Cruiser

        She probably had a GoFundMe page and got rich from it.

  • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

    I honestly don’t know how it works, but when ordering flowers or cakes don’t you point to a photo to select what you want? And then the florist or baker just creates what was in the photo? If so, then I don’t see it as an issue of artistic expression.

    • M Jackson

      It’s not. And in a wedding, as a florist or photographer or calligrapher or cake baker you are what’s called ‘vendor’. NOT ‘participant’.

      • John30013

        Well, it may be “artistic expression”, and I’m sure most florists and bakers typically work with their clients (for weddings or otherwise) to customize their offerings to match the clients’ selected color scheme, theme, etc. So I don’t deny the “artistic expression” argument.

        However, I do object to these business owners, who offer this service to the public, asserting that they can choose which members of the public they will serve. If Cottonelle doesn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, then she should not provide flowers for weddings at all. If the Colorado Baker Dude doesn’t want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, then he should not bake wedding cakes at all. Oregon and Colorado both have public accommodation laws that include LGBT people; as business owners operating in those states, Cottonelle and CBD knew the laws (or should have), and agreed to abide by them when they got their business licenses. If they can’t provide equal service to all customers, then they shouldn’t provide that service at all.

        And in any event, I definitely agree that vendors are not “participants” in any meaningful sense. They are service providers, and nothing more. The mere fact that the “service” they provide involves “artistic expression” should have no bearing on whom they provide that service to. Following Cottonelle’s and CBD’s argument, a restaurant chef could claim an objection to serving particular customers on the basis that her culinary creations are “artistic expressions”. (Certainly there is a significant amount of creativity that goes into creating a new dish. And the law is ill equipped to draw the line where “artistic expression” ends, so even a line cook could probably make a similar argument.)

        • Marty Eble

          This business owner, who offers her service to the public, did not assert that she can choose which members of the public she will serve. She asserted that she can choose which expressive conduct she engages in.

          If she was selling roses at $x per dozen and not floral arrangements, your point would be well-taken.

          The “participants” distinction, then, is irrelevant.

          • John30013

            If, as part of her business services, she engages in substantially similar “expressive conduct” for opposite-sex couples that she refuses to engage in for same-sex couples, then she is discriminating in the provision of those business services. The state is not forcing her to make flower arrangements (in general) for any particular person or persons, nor is the state forcing her to make specific types of flower arrangements, or flower arrangements for specific types of events. What the state does require is that any services she offers must be offered to all customers. Making flower arrangements for weddings is a service that her business provides–irrespective of the “expressive conduct” that goes into making any particular flower arrangement for any particular wedding.

            Her “expressive conduct” argument is a red herring, and the Washington State Supreme Court has obviously seen right through it (as they should).

          • Marty Eble

            If it is expressive conduct, she is constitutionally permitted to discriminate in what expressive conduct she engages in under the First Amendment.

            The Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to the states, which precludes the state of Washington from passing a law which purports to override it.

          • John30013

            No right is absolute—even the right of free speech has limits—and when different rights are in tension, then the courts must decide which is pre-eminent, and under which circumstances. If “expressive conduct” can be invoked to justify discrimination in providing business services, then where does that line get drawn? Can a chef at a fancy restaurant refuse to cook a meal for certain customers he dislikes? Isn’t his design of the meal, the combination of ingredients and flavors, the order in which they’re presented, and the presentation itself—”expressive conduct”? I think the answer here is a no-brainer, because we’ve already fought that battle.

            Again: it’s the same “expressive conduct” (arranging flowers), for two clients who are identically situated (both are getting married) except for one detail—the genders of the couples. Making flower arrangements is the expressive conduct, which Ms. Stutzman already engages in. The “quality” of the expressive conduct is not different because the wedding is between a same-sex couple vs. an opposite sex one; in both cases the result of the expressive conduct is flower arrangements. Ms. Stutzman doesn’t object to making flower arrangements (the expressive conduct); she objects to making them for use in a same-sex wedding. That’s discrimination, and under Washington State’s public accommodation law, it’s illegal.

          • Marty Eble

            The limits of Free Speech appear to be speech which inflicts harm – yelling “fire!” in a theater when there is none – and advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

            Since the State of Washington simply disregarded the defense that her business is an expressive conduct, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, if the SCOTUS accepts the case it will be the first consideration of the defense.

            Since we’re discussing “expressive conduct”, you already know the answer to “Can a chef at a fancy restaurant refuse to cook a meal for certain customers he dislikes?”

            In case you purport not to know, if he dislikes the customer because the customer has been disruptive in the restaurant, yes; if he dislikes the customer because the customer is black, no.

            And, since we’re discussing “expressive conduct” and not “art”, you already know the answer to “Isn’t his design of the meal, the combination of ingredients and flavors, the order in which they’re presented, and the presentation itself—”expressive conduct”?”

            No message, no expressive conduct.

            Yes, making flower arrangements is the expressive conduct, which Ms. Stutzman engages in. While you may opine that “(t)he ‘quality’ of the expressive conduct is not different”, you certainly can’t make the argument the message is the same “between a same-sex couple vs. an opposite sex one”.

            If you attempt to, you’re saying that the state of Washington may dictate to Ms. Stutzman what her definition of marriage must be and what her religious beliefs must be, or at least what they’re worth, which puts the state of Washington in the business of establishing religion – as well as crushing the very content of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

          • John30013

            I don’t agree that “art” must have a “message”—ever see a Jackson Pollack painting? It’s clearly “art”, but what is the message? I am not a lawyer nor a legal scholar, but from my (admittedly quick and cursory) web searches, it doesn’t appear that the term “art” (as we’re using it here) is defined in law at all.

            But returning to your argument, I’m curious why you think a flower arrangement communicates a “message”, what that message is, and how that message differs between a flower arrangement at an opposite-sex wedding vs. a same-sex one (that is, absent some obvious signal, such as the same-sex wedding flower arrangements featuring the rainbow colors).

            Ms. Stutzman’s complaint wasn’t that she didn’t want to make flower arrangements for a gay couple, it’s that she didn’t want to make flower arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding. She does not object to the “expressive conduct” of creating flower arrangements; only to the use of those arrangements in a same-sex wedding. I think the law generally agrees that once a customer has purchased a good or service, the customer is then free to use that good or service in any manner they so desire, unencumbered by the vendor’s ideas about how it should be used.

            Furthermore, Ms. Stutzman’s flower shop is not a church, and making (and, importantly, selling) flower arrangements is not a religious activity or a form of religious expression. Ms. Stutzman certainly seems to have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, but no one is forcing her to participate in such a marriage. She need not even be present (nor, indeed, to visit the site of the wedding personally). The fact that the service she provides requires her to do manual work, and involves some level of creative thought, does not change the basic nature of that service, nor should it grant her license to discriminate against some customers based purely on the personal characteristics of those customers (to address your “badly behaved customer” scenario).

            Let’s look at this a different way: no doubt Ms. Stutzman offers some “standard” flower arrangements (perhaps ordered out of a catalog or portfolio). Let’s say two couples come in—one opposite-sex and one same-sex, and they both order exactly the same “standard” flower arrangements for their respective weddings (tacky, I know, but maybe they’re on a budget). Do you still hold to your premise that Ms. Stutzman can refuse service to the same-sex couple? Surely these identical flower arrangements cannot be communicating different “messages”, since they’re identical in every way. Yet that is precisely what Ms. Stutzman is asserting. In other words, for her it’s not about the “message” of the flowers (that’s just her “cover story”); rather, it’s about her personal dislike of how those flowers will be used.

            As I said, I’m not a lawyer nor a judge. But I think that if Ms. Stutzman’s view prevails, it opens up a gaping hole in public accommodation law for anyone offering any service that involves any amount of creative activity to claim a religious objection to serving any customer they wish to discriminate against—not just florists who don’t like the gays getting married.

          • MirrorMan

            Ding! Ding! Ding! We have our winner! But Marty, poor thing, will refute it. See, he knows what he knows, don’t confuse him with the facts. Some people, they get bible thumped and they never recover.

          • Marty Eble

            You’ve changed the topic.

            The topic is not “art”.

            The topic is expressive conduct.

            The Petitioner thinks that a flower arrangement communicates a message, and that the message differs between a heterosexual and homosexual one. The First Amendment protects her from you, or me, or the state of Washington deciding that the messages are the same, or exactly what the message is, or to a very large but not absolute extent whether it is worthy.

            As to “once a customer has purchased a good or service, the customer is then free to use that good or service in any manner they so desire, unencumbered by the vendor’s ideas about how it should be used”, her Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asserts she communicated to the couple “she would gladly sell pre-made arrangements and raw materials for use at a same-sex ceremony”. Apparently they wanted the full service including her attendance.

            The notion that the “flower shop is not a church, and making (and, importantly, selling) flower arrangements is not a religious activity or a form of religious expression” flies right into the face of the First Amendment, which protects speech whether in a church, outside a church, on a church, or anywhere at all.

            If “no one is forcing her to participate in such a marriage”, then the state of Washington should have concluded that her offer to “sell pre-made arrangements and raw materials for use at a same-sex ceremony” fulfilled her obligation under the law. It did not.

            That also wraps up your “”Let’s say two couples come in—one opposite-sex and one same-sex, and they both order exactly the same “standard” flower arrangements for their respective weddings (tacky, I know, but maybe they’re on a budget).” scenario.

            I think it likely that Ms. Stutzman’s petition will be accepted and consolidated with the Masterpiece Cakes case which has already been accepted.

            I think the SCOTUS will rule that, with reasoning akin to the Hobby Lobby case, the government, not Federal, not the state of Washington, cannot compel protected speech, be it speech, written word, dance, cakes, or floral arrangements.

            This will leave all the hotels and motels and chain restaurants and supermarkets covered by public accommodation laws and inform the LBGT community that these anti-discrimination laws are not there to be used to even the score.

          • John30013

            You’re being pedantic. It should be obvious that I’m using “art” as a synonym for “expressive conduct”. Furthermore, you were the one who introduced the idea of a “message” into the discussion. I was just responding to your “enhanced” argument. I still assert that “expressive conduct” (to use your preferred term) need not communicate a “message”. (But I’d be interested to know whether the term “expressive conduct” occurs in any of the relevant statutes or case law. As I’ve said, I am not a lawyer.)

            Just because the Petitioner “thinks” her flower arrangements communicate a message doesn’t mean the law (or the courts) will agree.

            I agree with you that SCOTUS will probably accept her petition and combine it with the cake baker’s case out of Colorado. I’m not willing to predict an outcome, other than to hope that my view of things trumps yours.

            I’m not sure why you feel like LGBT people are trying to “even the score” (what score are they trying to even, other than to be treated fairly in the public square?)—that sounds more like animus. As I’ve stated, I don’t see how the court can draw the line you seem to support without opening a huge can of worms.

            I’ve enjoyed having this discussion with you, but I’m ready to move on and I’m tired of speculating.

            Be well.

          • Marty Eble

            “Art” is not a synonym for “expressive conduct”.

            Expressive conduct is protected by the First Amendment. That introduces the idea of a “message” into the discussion.

            “Expressive conduct” is found specifically in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), which declared that nude dancing was expressive conduct and covered by the First Amendment.

            That should give some hint that custom flower arrangements as described in the Petitioners Request for Certiorari is expressive conduct.

            I don’t feel like LGBT people as a class are trying to “even the score”. I certainly have not gotten that impression from own friends and relatives.

            On the other hand, as illustrated by Bob in Oakland, GayOldLady, and a few others there is definitely a “now it’s my turn” attitude showing up which is singularly unhelpful.

            Thank you for your thoughtful comments and musings, and also be well.

  • kareemachan

    She deserves to be sued for the name “Barronelle”.

    Wait – is she Barron’s REAL mother?

  • Christopher

    Yep, still looks like a mean old bitty.

    Pretty sure the word “hag” was invented to describe her.

    • kareemachan

      I don’t see a shred of humanity in her dead eyes.

    • Dagoril

      I’d call her a harpy, but I don’t see any wings.

      • Christopher

        The word “harridan” should have a picture of her in the dictionary.

      • Christopher

        She should drink more Red Bull. 😉

      • Schlukitz

        Perhaps…but she sure does know how to pluck our nerves like harp strings.

  • kareemachan

    Most of the time I’m proud of my home state.

    Most of the time….

  • The Milkman
  • Leo

    Well here we are. I wonder if SCOTUS will combine the two cases.

  • bambinoitaliano

    The delusional RWNJ have no self awareness. The horse face bitch thought she is some A-List celebrity deserving of leg room in the plane and then this moron who throw a bunch of flowers in a vase and call herself an artist. I should be a highly respected Pulitzer Price winning author for posting daily comments in here.

  • Blake J Butler

    Cottonelle, we meet again.

  • bkmn
  • TrueWords

    Some of these Christians really are short-sighted. The same logic that allows Barronelle Stutzman to impose a religious test on her customers would allow anyone else to similarly discriminate against Christians. The same logic that allows her to refuse service to a protected class would allow anyone to refuse service to white people, Christians, or women. Is that really what you want?

    How is what she did different than “Whites Only” signs?

    Are there any Stutzman supporters here who can defend their point with anything that resembles logic?

    Or who can look forward past the slogans to where this sort of thing would lead our society?

    Do you really want everyone to be free to do anything they want if they can call it a belief?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c06b8ffa9bc2645130e8a0dcd93bb73cf4292225fd9dc9f327de840e4be9e1a2.jpg

    • GayOldLady

      “The same logic that allows Barronelle Stutzman to impose a religious
      test on her customers would allow anyone else to similarly discriminate
      against Christians”

      Religion is a protected class under the Civil Rights act of 1964.

      • Ben in Oakland

        And that should be our argument. But it won’t be.

      • Chucktech

        Anyone who is running a BUSINESS and not otherwise addled by god will want to do BUSINESS with people who want to BUY their wares. That’s why christians have nothing to worry about having the tables turned on them by, for instance, an atheist business owner.

      • which is why i really want one of the marrying couples who experience discrimination in a state without LGBT protections to be a pair of devout Wiccans, whose scripture officially endorses same sex relationships and calls them “holy.” cause there are some Wicca like that. turn the table on these fuckers.

      • Ninja0980

        If the “religious freedom” case wins at SCOTUS, the Civil Rights Act of 64 will cease to exist.
        You can’t make a case about being able to ignore discrimination laws against one group of people and not others.

        • Marty Eble

          First you have to correctly identify “discrimination”.

          It is settled law that the government cannot compel someone to engage in speech – which consists of any expressive conduct – with which they disagree.

    • John30013

      Even Scalia didn’t want that.

    • Schlukitz

      You are assuming that she has a mind….

      and is capable of using it. LOL

    • Buford

      It’s simpler for me. She made a choice to participate in a religion, and she made another choice of how she wanted to earn a living. If those two choices are now conflicting, she’s the only one that can resolve that conflict.

      We are not obligated to create or amend laws to accommodate her conflicting, mutually-exclusive lifestyle choices.

      • Nikolai Caligosto

        Well said!

      • Marty Eble

        The law probably supports the contra position – the fact that a state has decided that this or that sexual preference is protected does not void the First Amendment, a founding document which predates the state law.

        • Buford

          Sexual preference…?

          • Marty Eble

            Yours or mine?

          • Buford

            Idiot.

          • Marty Eble

            You are? It must suck, no pun intended.

        • DonnaLee

          Show me in the bible where it says you can’t sell flowers or cake to a lesbian couple getting married.

          • Marty Eble

            I have no idea where in the Bible one would find that, if one would find that, or why you think I would have any idea.

            If you’re looking to bash somebody over religion, you’re looking in the wrong place.

    • Marty Eble

      No logic has been adduced to permit Barronelle Stutzman to impose a religious test on her customers, or a sexuality test, or anything of the sort.

      Since the facts of the case involve her refusing to make a wedding arrangement for individuals who she knew to be homosexual, and in fact had regularly served for nine years, and only drew the line on providing a specific wedding arrangement for their same sex marriage, you already have the answer to “How is what she did different than “Whites Only” signs?”

    • FAEN

      That is SO spot on.

  • Rex

    What else violates her beliefs? Sex before marriage, divorce, those who lie, cheat and steal? Is she fulling vetting all of her customers or only the gay ones? If she refuses to serve anyone who is a sinner in her eyes than I can go along with her right to deny service. If she only refuses to deny service to gay clients for wedding flowers than she has no right to be in business.

    • David in Palm Springs

      No, she stated in an interview that the personal lives of her (straight) customers is none of her business. So she only applies her VERY DEEPLY held religious beliefs to gay customers. In other words, she can’t *afford* to offend the vast majority of her straight customers if she tried to determine if they offended her religious ideology.

      • Marty Eble

        No, she only applies her beliefs when she asked to engage in expressive conduct.

    • Marty Eble

      So, have you noted a case where she refused to sell a floral arrangement celebrating sex before marriage, a divorce, or lying, or cheating, or stealing?

      If not, you seem to have missed the point of her defense.

      • MirrorMan

        You’re not very good at this, are you?

        • Marty Eble

          I was about to say the same thing to you.

          • MirrorMan

            Oooohhh!! Scathing retort! Very well done…for a 3rd grader.

      • Rex

        I understand perfectly. She wants the right to discriminate.

        • Marty Eble

          We all discriminate.

          Read the comments on the article.

  • She should relocate her business to any of the states where such discrimination is still legal. There are plenty choose from. People need flowers in Texas, Kansas, Utah, Idaho and many other states. Then she could practice her bigotry without getting fined or sued.

    • Schlukitz

      Well, you and I know that she will never do that. She is enjoying every moment of this soap opera.

      What would she have left to bitch and moan about if she did move?

    • yeah, that is what kills me about a lot of these cases. why do you live in a state with such nice anti-discrimination laws when you could live in one without them? oh, yeah. she enjoys the booming economy, generous benefits and protections, pleasant environment and educated customer base that blue states provide. she just wants to bring her red state discrimination to one and get away with it cause jeebus says she’s special.

      hypocrites, every last one of these business owners. let’s not forget that any business owner who starts up a business regulated by state law is accepting those laws by the very act of choosing to set up a business there. what’s the right’s favorite saying? “Amurka! lurv it or leave it!” well, the same is true for states, you dunderhead.

    • Statistics Palin

      Given that there are hundreds of thousands of gays who have had to move to avoid discrimination by people just like her, I really don’t give a shit about her “right” to discriminate in what ever state she decides to call home.

      • Marty Eble

        And as laws quickly being passed in over a dozen states with more pending demonstrate, the public really doesn’t give a shit about some contrived rights being used to pummel those with sincere religious beliefs.

        • Statistics Palin

          What could be more easily fabricated than “sincerely held” religious beliefs? Even these fucking snake jugglers can make shit up. Talk about a bullshit law.

          • Marty Eble

            Fortunately the First Amendment protects individuals from governmental action designed to determine which are acceptable sincerely held religious beliefs and which are not. That process involves establishing religion.

    • Marty Eble

      Or the couple in the suit should have gone to another baker or another state.

  • canoebum

    Baronelle’s problem is the couple she refused had been customers of her store for years prior to her violating the law when she discriminated against them. If she had religious objections to gay couples, why did she not voice them at an earlier time?

    • The_Wretched

      Becket Fund for Religious Hegemony hadn’t farmed her up as a notional plaintiff at the time.

    • Ben in Oakland

      They want to claim it is all about the religious act of marriage, not serving gay people. Nonsense, of course. it’s the same cake. But it means that even they are aware of what they are doing. They just want legal permission to do it.

      • Marty Eble

        I have never seen a rainbow wedding cake at a heterosexual marriage.

        • Ben in Oakland

          I doubt youHave ever been to a gay wedding. And if they don’t want to make a rainbow cake, I can easily support that. But not that they get an exception to making the same cake for a gay couple that they make for anyone else.

          As I keep telling you, get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 repealed I’d you want to allow discrimination on the basis of religious belief.. but don’t come whining to me if Christians start receiving what they are happy to dish out.

          • Marty Eble

            My attendance or non-attendance at a same sex activity has absolutely no relevance at all.

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not cover the facts of this particular case, which arises solely from Colorado’s anti-discrimination act.

            Are you suggesting that Masterpiece was producing rainbow wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings?

            It certainly does not appear in the record of the case to this point.

          • tempus

            Your comments have absolutely no relevance, bearing, or importance at all, in this and many other matters. Do get back to your blatant theofascist sites, where you can have so much more fun lying about forced-birth fascism, blatant anti-LGBT discrimination and hatemongering, and all the other pet bigotries you live for. Nice upvote/comment ratio, by the way, troll. Blocked for imbecility.

          • Marty Eble

            Thank you for sharing your neo-fascist ill-informed borderline imbecilic viewpoint.

          • Ben in Oakland

            the civil rights act forbids discrimination on the basis of religious belief in public accommodations. Only in a world where there have been no antigay campaigns– i.e., YOUR world– does it make a special exception for snowflakes and so-called Christians.

          • Marty Eble

            As you have written it, the Civil Rights Act forbids the action being taken against Arlene’s Flowers and protects her religious beliefs.

            I am rather sure you intended to communicate something else.

          • Ben in Oakland

            Well, that really remains to be determined by the courts you despise so much. But since it’s a cake…
            ggod luck,.

          • Marty Eble

            No, the United States has no federal law outlawing LGBTdiscrimination
            nationwide, leaving residents in some states without protection from
            discrimination, other than from federal executive orders which have a
            more limited scope than from protections through federal legislation.

            Other than the Supreme Court decisions the only other nationally applicable provisions are the 2012 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow gender identity-based employment discrimination, expanded slightly in 2015.

          • Marty Eble

            This case is not about discrimination on the basis of religious belief in public accommodations.

            It is an action based on the state of Washington attempting under guise of state law to compel expressive conduct in violation of the First Amendment.

        • tempus

          And I have never seen a florist at any marriage, homo or hetero, acting as officiant, ‘religious’ personage, or any other party integral to and performing in the actual ceremony.

          • Marty Eble

            Whatever that was supposed to mean.

            Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the case.

      • -M-

        The thing is the religious aspect, if any, of a wedding is at the couple’s discretion not that of the vendors providing purely secular goods and services like cakes, flower arrangements, catering or rentals.

      • Marty Eble

        Of course it’s not all the same cake. Were that the case the couple would have gone elsewhere.

        This all about evening the score with people with religious beliefs, and using the state of Washington to make it look like something else.

        • Ben in Oakland

          Of course you believe that. It’s what you tell yourself to justify your bad behavior. It couldn’t possibly be that we gay people have been on the receiving end of the Christian baseball bat for 1900 years, and are getting a trifle sick of your assertion of privilege and dominion over our lives.
          Being upset at injustice just couldn’t have a thing out do with it.
          but if you want to talk about evening the score, do let’s talk about your desire for a constitutional amendment to ban our marriages. Or your insistence that discrimination on the basis of religious belief–c something banned at every level of government– is just ducky in this instance and in this instance only.
          you are such a duck.

          • Marty Eble

            I can see why YOU might wind up on the receiving end of a baseball bat with your attitude. I would expect people at the receiving end of your acerbic little demands to get a trifle sick of it.

            It is a bit hard to see how beating an old lady up because her religious beliefs will result in your going next door for your floral arrangement, while placing your foot on the neck of the First Amendment, has anything to do with “being upset at injustice”.

            I believe in democratic processes. Do you?

            Or are you so special that everything, including the democratic process, must be bent to insure you get what you want?

    • Schlukitz

      Excellent point.

    • Marty Eble

      Actually what you’re arguing is her case. Her argument is that she served them knowing they were homosexuals. She simply drew the line at engaging in expressive conduct with which she disagreed.

      • canoebum

        I can’t agree. She knew they were gay. If that offended her religious sensibilities so much, why did she tolerate them for so long as customers? It seems that only after same-sex marriage became a big topic in the news, and that she could be the center of attention, that she grew a guilty conscience.

        • Marty Eble

          She did not tolerate them. She has stated they were friends.

          Up until they asked her to do a floral arrangement for their wedding, they had never asked her to do something she felt she cannot do.

          Your last sentence is a simple calumny.

          • canoebum

            I’m entitled to my own opinion. I think she did this for the attention. Nothing more.

          • Marty Eble

            Of course you’re entitled to your own opinion.

      • MirrorMan

        Wait a minute. Arranging flowers is, for her, an expressive act, right? Which she had done for them for nine years, correct? But all of a sudden, when it’s a marriage ceremony, a CIVIL marriage ceremony, she gets to take a pass? That doesn’t even pass the smell test.

        • Marty Eble

          You haven’t bothered to actually familiarize yourself with the basic facts.

          It shows.

          • MirrorMan

            I’m just following the points your making in your argument that what she does is an ‘expressive act’. It’s not my fault your argument sucks.

    • DonnaLee

      Plus she’s not participating in the wedding! Several people have pointed out that they wouldn’t want a bigot to photograph their wedding, since then you’re actually participating somewhat in the wedding itself. Same for ministers.

      Flowers and cake get sent. No participation in the event itself. If you don’t want to provide a groom/groom cake topper, then you just tell them they have to order their own, and leave a space for it. Nobody asked the florist to put rainbow ribbons on the flowers right?

  • DisqusD37

    It’s not like you have a lot of years left, lady; the future doesn’t belong to you.

  • TrueWords
    • MBear

      it’s never about ‘religious freedom’

      • clay

        no, no, it’s about “artistic expression”

        /s

        • Samanthajblackston

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pa92d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !pa92d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash92ShopEcoGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pa92l..,..

    • netxtown

      How I’d love to see RBG toss that on the discussion pile…

  • ohbear1957
  • Jonathan Smith
  • KnownDonorDad

    The Supreme Court may make passing ENDA irrelevant, if ADF continues its stellar track record.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    Will this NEVER end ?!?!

    • stuckinthewoods

      Apparently she and ADF can still raise money on it. It will end when they can’t.

      • billionaire hater money lasts a long time, and greedy grifting lawyers for hate are always looking for more.

    • Schlukitz

      Not as long as their are idiots who will listen to her and humor her.

      And there seem to be an awful lot of them.

    • Chucktech

      Only when Son God Jeezy stays dead.

  • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

    People who would give up their livelihood because Gawwwd are stupid. Maybe as stupid as the Christians who refused to say they embraced Zeus and were tortured to death by the Romans.

  • GayOldLady

    The “artistic expression” argument is trying to open the door to categorizing all forms of service as “artistic expression”. If I go to a restaurant and the “chef/cook” declines to serve me is it because he doesn’t want to endorse my lesbianism with his cooking? How about the Optometrist, the Jeweler, the Baker, the auto mechanic, the Dental Hygienist, the Pharmacist? If they win with this argument they win “the right to discriminate”, carte blanche, based on some hocus pocus religious test. How can any vendor, provider, service company, cater to the public if the religious test is applied across the board equally? Will they cease to serve those who take the name of god in vain, or those who are divorced, having affairs, liars, people who are greedy, overweight people, smokers, tobacco chewers, tattooed people, people wearing cotton, women who teach, men who don’t have beards, women with short hair? I want to know, will the prosecution of their religious beliefs test be selective or applied across the board according to the BuyBull? The answer is apparent. They want the right to selectively discriminate against the LGBT community, period. This is for that reason and none other and whoever defends our position at SCOTUS MUST make this argument. It’s no different than the “Muslim Ban” disguised as a “Travel Ban”.

    • Schlukitz

      This!

    • Jon Doh

      I nominate you to defend our position. You don’t happen to be a GayOldLawyer do thee?

      • GayOldLady

        My wife accuses me of thinking I’m a lawyer when we have a heated debate, But alas, I’m just a feisty, retired old woman.

        • My Dear–you left off “respected and revered” 🙂 btw–at the powwow this weekend, I laughed that the MC called for the “Golden Age” Women and Warriors dance competition. When I remareked I didn’t consider myself “golden age” but maybe “silver,” my Plus One said, “I more Bronze Age.”

          • GayOldLady

            LOL!!!! But the question remains, did you dance? And compared to some of the commenters here I’m not even Bronze Age, I’m more like, Stone Age. 🙂

    • boatboy_srq

      It will all fall down the moment some business decides not to serve the divorced/remarried because divorce is prohibited (Deut 24:1 / Jer. 3:1).

      • GayOldLady

        1 Timothy 2:12

        “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence”

        I can’t wait for some man to claim religious conscience to try to enforce this one. It will get crazy really quick!!!!

        • boatboy_srq

          Trouble is there are enough Xtianist women who would agree with that one. See: Bachmann, Michele.

    • Ninja0980

      Best posting I’ve seen on this in a long time, well done!

    • RaygunsGoZap

      This is the argument I’ve been making for a few years. The florist is the wedge but the judge and the doctor and the politician are the goal.

    • Marty Eble

      The artistic expression argument is intended to raise a constitutional issue when laws like Washington State’s and Colorado’s, at least as they are applied, conflict with the First Amendment.

      One rather doubts that your optometrist, auto mechanic, dental hygienist, and pharmacist engage during services with you in expressive conduct.

      In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) the SCOTUS concluded that dancing scantily clad or nude in a booth viewed by men placing coins to observe was “was expressive conduct under the First Amendment”.

      Therefore your jeweler and baker, depending on what they are providing you, could well be engaging in “expressive conduct under the First Amendment”.

      That fairly well dispenses with “(t)hey want the right to selectively discriminate against the LGBT community”. Rather, they wish to exercise their existing right not to engage in expressive conduct with which they disagree.

      • GayOldLady

        It’s hard to take that one SCOTUS decision and compare it to this scenario. As it happens this Florist had sold this couple flowers for their anniversaries and other celebrations of their love. But when they got married she suddenly was consumed by religious objection. I wonder, does she provide flowers to weddings where one or both of the participants were divorced? She can’t use her bible to selectively discriminate against the LGBT community, nor can anyone else who serves the public. From the biblical point of view just the fact that I am living a gay life is in violation of biblical law. Getting married doesn’t make me more or less gay, it just codifies the contract in civil law. So what she’s really objecting to is my equality in the law, she’s objecting to me having the right to engage in the civil contract of marriage. Of course they think they can win this or they wouldn’t be chasing this dog down the alley, but if the argument is properly made litigants will have to prove that they are dispensing their religious objection in all of their business dealings, not just in the LGBT community. She can’t prove that because she’s not doing that, neither is the baker, the jeweler or anyone else who provides services to the public.

        • Marty Eble

          It’s not hard to point out that one SCOTUS decision put a torpedo into the waterline of your argument that she was selling commodities.

          You’re begging the question with “(s)he can’t use her bible to selectively discriminate against the LGBT community” since she did not discriminate against the community but against a specific service for an existing customer.

          When you write “Getting married doesn’t make me more or less gay, it just codifies the contract in civil law.”, you’re demanding that your interpretation trumps her religious beliefs and that you have every right to compel her with the full force and power of the government to utter speech with which she fervently disagrees.

          The burden of proof is on you and the state of Washington, so “She can’t prove that because she’s not doing that” is presumption of guilt, which I think is pretty much what the record up to this point supports.

          • GayOldLady

            My “intepretation” is not an interpretation, it is the law. Marriage Equality is the law of the land, whether you like it or not. Her objection is to that law (marriage equality). If she refused this gay couple she will refuse every gay couple.

            This case has been decided, so appealing it to SCOTUS shifts the burden of proof to Stutzman.

            Washington Supreme Court: “On November 15, 2016, state Attorney General Ferguson personally argued the case before the Washington Supreme Court at its hearing, which was held before an audience in Bellevue College’s auditorium. On February 16, 2017, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman, holding that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Rejecting Stutzman’s Free Exercise Clause claim, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote “this case is no more about the access to flowers than civil rights cases were about access to sandwiches.”

            Washington Supreme Court: “As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace,” the
            court wrote. “Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for
            ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally
            undermined.”

          • Marty Eble

            No, your interpretation that her doing floral arrangements is NOT expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment is your interpretation, not the law.

            “Marriage equality”, whatever that is, is not the law of the land but an apparent outcome of Obergefell v. Hodges which is still being litigated as I write.

            The case has been decided up the Washington Supreme Court. We begin afresh now that the constitutional issue has been raised before the SCOTUS if it accepts the case and combines it with Masterpiece Cakeshop, which appears to involve the same issues.

            If the case is NOT about “public accommodations laws”, as the Washington State courts assert, but about compelling expressive conduct under state law, the entire Washington state case collapses.

          • GayOldLady

            Marriage Equality is the law of the land. Now you may want to see Obergefell overturned or Plessy, or Roe, or Loving, or Brown overturned, but unless or until they are, they are decided law. You may not like it but gay people can and are marrying in all 50 States, even in State’s that had State law or Constitutional Amendments that prior to June 2015 banned same gender Marriage. Stutzman will lose this, even with Gorsuch she’ll lose 5-4. And when she does all the Evangelicals can crawl up on to their crosses and weep.

          • Marty Eble

            Sorry you’re so angry, but a remedy is only a constitutional amendment away for the evangelicals.

          • GayOldLady

            Oh, I’m not angry ding -dong , I’m just sick of spending a lifetime dealing with people like you who think your religious beliefs trump my Civil Rights. You lost with Loving, you lost with Roe, you lost with Brown. Your ilk cried constitutional amendment then too. Not gonna happen. Dream on homophobe.

          • Marty Eble

            To a certain extent my religious beliefs, exercised as civil rights, do trump your civil rights.

            Loving, Roe, and Brown deal with completely different issues.

            Loving was fairly well based in constitutional law.

            Brown the result was fairly well based in constitutional law but the reasoning was bordering on silly.

            Roe was a fellow who thought he was the smartest man in the room who invented a right out of thin air which has increased rather than decreased national rancor.

            Obergefell v. Hodges burst full blown from Justice Kennedy’s forehead like Athena out of Zeus’ head, in a shower of fortune cookie aphorisms and the usual Kennedy sweet mystery of life rhetoric.

            You have never, I assure you, met my ilk.

            Btw, I am not a homophobe – I don’t hate men.

          • MirrorMan

            Your ilk? Please. As it stands, you, logic, and reality don’t seem to get along very well. Have you ever even met?

          • Marty Eble

            So far all the citations from the record, the petition, and the law have come from me.

            All the smarmy unsupported comments have come from you and a couple of others.

            When you can put together some sort arrangement of facts, supported by something other than your bald-faced opinion, and connect them in a logical connectitude of argument to establish an actual proposition beyond “you, logic, and reality don’t seem to get along very well”, do let us know.

          • MirrorMan

            Aw, don’t like being called out on your behind-the-scenes bigotry? Just because you don’t flaunt your retrograde attitudes like most neanderthals, you still act like one. All the pretty prose, and careful word choices, the legalese and attempt at ‘lawyer-like’ drivel doesn’t make the crap sandwich you’re selling any more attractive. We’ve been through this song and dance before, many times, in fact! I can assure you, we know the moves, words, and rhythm better than you ever will. And using a made-up word from ‘How I Met Your Mother’ doesn’t make you a genius, McFly. Your a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. ‘Connectitude’. Sheesh! And you wanted to be taken seriously? Got any other sitcom words you wanna throw around there, McFly? Maybe something from ‘Seinfeld’?

          • Marty Eble

            You’re not calling anyone out on anything.

            You’re simply engaging in ignorant ranting.

          • MirrorMan

            Says McFly, who’s been wrong about almost everything so far. It’s OK, Snowflake. Just go to your ‘Happy Place’, and maybe, I dunno, read a book or something? Educate yourself? Try not to be so…you?

          • Marty Eble

            Click, click, click …

          • MirrorMan

            Poor Snowflake! Night night!

          • Marty Eble

            Click, click, click ….

          • Jim Maloney

            I imagine the commenter also had what he thought were ‘compelling’ reasons and legal citations of why Obergefell wouldn’t prevail, and it did anyway.

          • GayOldLady

            Oh, you hate women?

          • Marty Eble

            With the exception of yourself, no.

          • GayOldLady

            Oh, you hate a woman who stands up to you? Typical he man woman hater.

          • Marty Eble

            No. I hate ignorance.

          • GayOldLady

            Then you must be self loathing

          • Marty Eble

            No, I’m 6′ 2″, 240 lbs, and apparently have a lot less to loath about than you do.

          • GayOldLady

            Why did you need to tell me your height and weight? Is that some sort of a visual threat? If it is ROTFLMFAO because you are so weak. I’m 5’7′ and weigh 150lbs, but I have a grandson who is 6’4″ and weights 245 lbs. Plays college FB. My son is 6’4″ and weighs about 260. And FYI it is not spelled “loath” it is spelled Loathe, Mr. District Attorney. Now move along .

          • Marty Eble

            Why did you need to tell me your age, your partner’s age, and about your children, grandchildren, etc.?

            https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/loath

            This is just not your night, Ms. Dictionary, now move along.

          • GayOldLady

            I told you my age and the fact that I have grandchildren because you brought up Stutzman’s age and the fact that she has grandchildren, as if that somehow should evoke sympathy in the heart or mind of the listener. I never told you my partners age. Now move along Sonny, unless of course you’re a gay man, if you are I’m sure we can hook you up.

          • Marty Eble

            Time to go hang on your hook for the night, Granny.

          • GayOldLady

            For a man who claims to not have religious beliefs you sure hang at a lot of religious blogs. Are you a zealot?

          • Marty Eble
          • GayOldLady
          • GayOldLady

            I bet I’ve been with more women than you have.

          • Marty Eble

            My standards are probably higher than yours.

          • GayOldLady

            I bet I have more sex in my 70’s than you’ve had in your entire life! And I don’t have to take cialis.

          • Marty Eble

            You have a lot of cash?

          • GayOldLady

            Nope, I’m still quite attractive and I’m married to a woman who is considerably younger than I. She’s hot!!!

          • Marty Eble

            Not to anyone who knows you, I’m sure.

          • GayOldLady

            Looking at your photo, I’d say by comparison, I’m extremely gorgeous. Even in my 70’s I score more than you.

          • Marty Eble

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Arquette

            You’re a hell of a lot more interested in me than I am in you.

          • GayOldLady

            I’m not the least bit interested in you. I just want you to leave.

          • Marty Eble

            You first.

          • GayOldLady

            Oh no, after you. Defer to age like a Gentleman, if that’s possible.

          • GayOldLady

            You’re can’t get any so you’re cruising the gay blogs

            http://www.webmd.com/erectile-dysfunction/default.htm

          • Marty Eble

            That’s a real knee-slapper, Granny.

          • GayOldLady

            I don’t know, but I’ve been told, Cialis is worth it’s weight in gold.

          • Marty Eble

            So, your girlfriend took a Cialis and couldn’t get her tongue back in her mouth for a month?

          • GayOldLady

            Nope, we don’t UNLIKE YOU, we don’t need cialis.

          • Marty Eble

            Just two bags …. in case the first one breaks.

          • GayOldLady

            A little wine, a little music, and it’s twilight time!

          • Marty Eble

            I have a feeling with you it’s twilight time all day – but in a different sense.

          • GayOldLady

            Nope, nope, nope. Ageism doesn’t work here. I’ve been up since 5:30AM and still going strong.

          • Marty Eble

            I’m sure you’re your own best audience.

          • GayOldLady

            Well I can sing and dance, even tell a few jokes. The girls love me!

          • GayOldLady

            I hate to discuss women with you because obviously you can’t get one. Which explains your fixation on Barronelle Stutzman. She’s a bit old for you, but whatever floats your boat.

          • Marty Eble

            I dunno … you seem to have insatiable desire to talk to me.

          • GayOldLady

            As soon as you go away I promise I won’t follow.

          • Marty Eble

            As your endless comments demonstrate.

          • GayOldLady

            As your endless comments likewise demonstrate.

          • GayOldLady

            You can come back when Barronelle loses and we’ll discuss why you were wrong and I was right. Assuming SCOTUS takes this case, which I doubt!!!!

          • Marty Eble

            Is “I doubt!!!!” substantially different than “I doubt”?

          • GayOldLady

            Except for the exclamation points, not much.

          • GayOldLady

            Or maybe we can’t hook you up since you’re a homocon, so you better move along!

          • Marty Eble

            You first, Granny.

          • GayOldLady
          • Marty Eble

            Buy a toupe with a brain.

          • GayOldLady

            Buy a brain, or maybe that explains why you’re wearing a hat.

          • Marty Eble

            Oh, another knee-slapper.

          • FAEN

            What the fuck does your heaight and weight have to do with anything?

          • Marty Eble

            What the fuck do YOU have to do with anything?

          • FAEN

            Uh-were on a comment board? Your comment was bizarre which is why I asked. Touched a nerve?

          • Marty Eble

            Not mine.

          • FAEN

            Yeah it did.

          • GayOldLady

            You have freedom of religion, but not the freedom to force your dogma onto a secular society. Don’t believe in marriage equality,?then don’t marry someone of your gender. I sure won’t make you. I won’t champion laws that make you. You can believe I’m wrong, but you can’t force that religious belief on me through the force of law.

          • Marty Eble

            Since I haven’t presented any dogma, I have no idea what you are going on and on about.

            If two thirds of both houses of Congress propose an amendment to the Constitution, and three fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or if two thirds of the states call for a constitutional convention, and pass an amendment by a vote of three fourths, that amendment becomes part of the written Constitution of the United States no law or court decision withstanding.

            It’s been done 27 times so far.

          • GayOldLady

            I understand how a Constitutional amendment happens it’s extremely difficult. That’s why there have been so few. The last was the ERA which failed. You’ll never pass a Constitutional Amendment. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

          • Marty Eble

            It is so difficult we got 27, about 1 every 8.5 years.

            You and Bob in Oakland are sure doing all you can to motive those folks to accomplish it.

            Btw, the last one to be proposed was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, not the Equal Rights Amendment, and the oldest still not ratified is the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which has been unratified since September 25, 1789.

            The 27th amendment, which was approved May 5, 1992, had also been pending since September 25, 1789.

          • MirrorMan

            This one is almost TOO easy! McFly, you are averaging out amendments like it’s a magazine subscription, but that’s not how it works! Talk about obfuscating the facts! The first 10, yes 10, came as a group shortly after the constitution was signed. 2 of them, 18 and 21, were diametrically opposed to one another. 3 came right after the Civil War (Which, it seems, you are still fighting. Good luck with that one, Sport!). Man, you aren’t just bad at this, you truly suck. But, nice to know you have a hobby.

          • Marty Eble

            Actually that is how it works.

            You put the denominator over the numerator and wind up with a fraction by simple division.

            228/27 = 8.44444…

          • MirrorMan

            That’s math. This is politics. I know, I know, all that homeschooling never prepared you for the real world. Must be frightening for you…

          • Marty Eble

            I provided a number, not an assessment.

            It must frightening for you to try to carry on a conversation with nothing to contribute to it.

          • MirrorMan

            McFly: “I provided a number, not an assessment.”
            McFly, earlier: “It is so difficult we got 27, about 1 every 8.5 years.”
            Sure looks like an assessment to me, considering how that’s not at all how it worked. History, and facts, are hard! Do try to keep up, McFly. I know it’s hard, but those brain cells aren’t going to exercise themselves.

          • Marty Eble

            228 years divided by 27 = 1 every 8.4444

            This may help:

            http://www.basic-mathematics.com/

          • MirrorMan

            Which just goes to show everyone that density isn’t just a quality of matter, it also describes McFly’s thought processes…. such as they are.

          • GayOldLady

            There have been 6 Constitutional Amendments in my lifetime, none of those were about a serious social issues.

          • Marty Eble

            Brace yourself then.

          • GayOldLady

            Not gonna happen. But you can dream like all the other bigots.

          • Marty Eble

            I do have a dream. I dream you’re going to find someone else to annoy.

          • GayOldLady

            Well I have a dream, that you go the fuck away! Until then I’ll annoy the hell out of you.

          • Marty Eble

            Go ahead.

          • GayOldLady

            Pick, pick, pick

          • GayOldLady

            You’re defending a religious dogma. WHY?

          • Marty Eble

            What religious dogma might that be?

          • GayOldLady

            Loving deals with the same issue
            Religions believed that interracial marriage was forbidden in scripture, unnatural, immoral. Most religions preached and taught against interracial marriage.I know that’s hard to understand in 2017. but that’s how society thought at the time. 50 years from now American’s will feel shame at the way the LGBT community was brutalized by religion and society. You get to tell people you were an active participant in bigotry. Congratulations

          • Marty Eble

            The parties in Loving were the same sex?

            You can tell people today, not 50 years from now, you’re an active participant in misinformation.

            Relative to me, btw, you can put a sock in the religion rant.

          • GayOldLady

            Well I know they were the same sex, but the parallel is that they were a different race which was not done in America of that era. I lived in that world. I know what it was like, do you? Loving was used in the Obergefel arguments to SCOTUS. And if you’re not religious then you should know her conscience argument is bullshit. If you read the Washington arguments the entire argument was based on her religious conviction.

          • Marty Eble

            Racial discrimination is not analogous.

            Her entire argument was based on Free Speech, which arose from her religious beliefs.

            I don’t know that her argument is bullshit, but I know you’re a bullshitter.

          • MirrorMan

            “Racial discrimination is not analogous.” Why? That was the ENTIRE basis for opposition to interracial marriage, that ‘Gawd’ didn’t want the races to mix. (Stand back, everyone, I’m going to do a ‘citing’!) BAM!!! “Opinion of Judge Bazile in Commonwealth v. Loving (January 22, 1965)”. http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org. (Word to the wise, McFly, that’s how you cite something, not just continually flatulating your opinions as though they are actual facts. But like I said, you suck at this.) In case your attention span is matched by your legal acumen, there’s this: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

            But as I’ve said in the past, it takes a special kind of idiot to believe in a magic book that has all the answers that was written by a bunch of people who didn’t know where the sun went at night. You keep telling yourself that this isn’t about religion. We already got a peek under those sheets.

          • Marty Eble

            You wouldn’t understand the answer.

          • MirrorMan

            Got nothin’, huh, McFly? Thought so.

          • Marty Eble

            You thought?

          • MirrorMan

            More than you, but that’s not exactly difficult. Your arguments have all the power and effectiveness of a pound of used dynamite.

          • Marty Eble

            I am sure you’re an expert on used dynamite.

          • MirrorMan

            That was an….unintelligible reply. Poor McFly. So mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence. I bet the only reason you’re here is to pick up some new lines to use on other people to try to prove to them how quick-witted and sharp you are. Yeah you’re sharp, alright. Sharp as a tack and twice as flat-headed. Too bad I have other things to do. Have fun McFly. Don’t play with any sharp objects…

          • Marty Eble

            You don’t appear to be excessively sharp.

          • MirrorMan

            Poor McFly. He was born ignorant and he’s been losing ground ever since.

          • GayOldLady

            And since you’re such a brilliant legal mind why aren’t you arguing this case before SCOTUS. You can’t legalese me or anyone else in the LGBT community into silence any longer. Been there, done that. We’re out of the shadows and you will never put us back. You’re no different than the segregationists of the 50’s and 60’s who argued for Jim Crow while hiding behind their bible. You believe the LGBT community should NOT be afforded equality in the law because we challenge your religious sensibilities. I personally don’t care what your religious beliefs are, they have no power over me. I hate to break it to you but you’ve lost this fight. We have Marriage Equality, Deal with it.

          • Marty Eble

            Right now I’m busy with someone styling his or herself as GayOldLady.

            My personal advice to those who oppose you is to skip the discussions, for reasons you’re making quite plain, and head for a constitutional amendment.

            We have a Constitution and the power to amend it.

            Deal with it.

          • GayOldLady

            You’ll get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage when hell turns into peanut butter or when jesus returns on a unicorn. The majority of Americans support Marriage Equality. Y’all can’t even make a bathroom bill stick. Transgender people aren’t a threat and neither are gays and lesbians. Straight men are the perpetrators of most sexual crimes and a hell of a lot of them call themselves Christian.You’re control of the narrative has ended. Now go in peace homophobe.

          • GayOldLady

            And I’m wasting my time with someone fashioning himself as a constitutional expert. Folks here know me. I’m a 70+ year old lesbian woman who’s in a 33 year relationship. I married my wife 2 years ago. I have children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. I chew up homophobes like you and spit them out for sport. You’re way out of your depth. You can’t score a damned point here. Now move along sonny.

          • Marty Eble

            When it comes to law, yes, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

            So far the only things you seem to be chewing up and spitting are your lips.

            If ignorance is bliss, you may be the happiest 70+ year old woman in the world.

          • GayOldLady

            Coming from a guy with shit for brains who comes to a gay blog and tries to convince LGBT people that marriage equality isn’t the law of the land and that Stutznan is going to win because he says so. Move along you religious zealnut, you’ll find no takers here.. We’ve forgotten more on these issues than you’ll ever know.

          • Marty Eble

            “A guy with shit for brains” is the sum total of your efforts.

            And you support it with a non-existent “tries to convince LGBT people that marriage equality isn’t the law of the land”?

            I fully acknowledged Obergefell v. Hodges, noted that it is still being litigated, and shared my impression of Justice Kennedy,

            That’s it?

            Nor have I presented any religious arguments.

            Nor have I said the Petitioner will win – I laid out what I believe was the pertinent law and based on that have the impression that she has a better than 50/50 chance at winning.

            So, I should be impressed with you?

            I think not.

          • MirrorMan

            Still being litigated? Only by the hardcore religious right homophobes who still need to bilk money out of their followers to pay for their latest jet or resort home. Wake up, Sparky! This was a SCOTUS ruling, not an episode of ‘Law and Order’.

          • GayOldLady

            I personally don’t care how you feel about me. You showed up here in an effort to defend Stutzman. You basically said her religious beliefs supercede my Civil Rights. Then you deviated to path 2, a Constitutional Amendment. That’s not going to happen. It’s easy to read your comments as adversarial to the LGBT community. Now you’re feigning innocence? You’re acting as if all you were saying is Stutzman had a 50-50 chance. No, that’s not what you were saying. You were defending her bigotry. Even the Washington Supreme Court recognized it as bigotry and basically called it that.Move on Sonny

          • Marty Eble

            I came her to comment on, not “defend”, Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., D/b/a Arlene’s Flowers And Gifts, and Barronelle Stutzman, Petitioners, V. State of Washington.

            I basically said that her First Amendment – which in this case were asserted on religious grounds – rights cannot be suppressed or infringed in favor of some Washington state law at will. The actual criterion is known as “strict scrutiny”.

            I also pointed out, in response to Bob in Oakland and his baseball bat, that a constitutional amendment could override both the Washington law and Obergefell were it to come that, and it could. My impression is that beating up on 72 year old grandmothers is probably not the way to win the hearts and minds of the populace.

            I was unaware until you informed me that anything that offended your majesty would provoke irrational outbursts, flashes of indignation, threats, and unschooled legal assessments, punctuated by “Move on Sonny” and like comments apparently intended to impress me (not) or others (more probably).

            However, I am glad to hear you don’t care how I feel about you, Granny. I wouldn’t want to feel guilty.

          • MirrorMan

            You’ll notice that when he knows he can’t respond with a rational argument, he jumps to another comment, or falls back to general snark. You’re a slacker, McFly!

          • Jim Maloney

            My impression is that denying services to gay couples in violation of public accommodatioins laws is probably not the way to win the hearts and minds of the populace.

          • Marty Eble

            Which is why the states were solving the problem of fairness with civil unions, marriages, and so on.

            Spiking the democratic process, which has become an avocation of some on the Supreme Court, and then pushing cases like the one being discussed – beating up grannies – almost guarantees a backlash.

          • MirrorMan

            So, you admit there was unfairness, and think the states were solving this issue with ‘Civil Unions’? Separate, but equal? Yeah, that’s not how ‘equality’ works. Let’s see, how did that work out last time… Man, McFly, your Mom may have said you were smart, but I have a hard time thinking even she believed it.

          • Marty Eble

            You really are without a clue of any kind.

          • MirrorMan

            There he goes again! You’re more predictable than a cesium clock.

          • Marty Eble

            And you’re almost as smart as a cesium clock.

          • MirrorMan

            You spelled cesium right! You deserve a gold star!

          • Jim Maloney

            I don’t see much backlash – at least not to the level you seem to be implying. LGBTs used legislatures, the electorate and courts in their efforts. Now support for same-sex marriage has increased and there is broad support for providing service to LGBTs after those varied efforts (including visibility and public education/awareness). http://www.pollingreport.com/lgbt.htm
            The courts seemed to work well for Loving, etc. when the ‘democratic process’ no longer did. The supposed ‘backlashes’ eventually became nothings then and now – they’re a vocal minority.

          • Marty Eble

            Good for you.

            I probably don’t live where you live.

            I haven’t seen any polls on the Washington state and Colorado cases.

            As the last election showed, a lot of folks have simply lumped pollsters with CNN and stopped responding.

          • Jim Maloney

            In the link I posted above, the majority of the polls showing LGBT support for marriage and public accommodations were taken before the election – in some cases years – so there doesn’t seem to be a correlation between the public’s perception of polls and their increase of LGBT support. There’s simply been an increase over time.

            Whatever the poll is it appears majority support is not with the public accommodations violators or service deniers (whether a s/he, regardless of age, service provided or religious beliefs) but with those being denied the service or being violated of their right to be served by the public-serving business. There’s interesting data in that link.

          • Marty Eble

            This topic is beyond what I am for at this point in the evening, and I don’t it’s directly related to the case.

            Americans are generally pretty fair. That explains why at the state level progress was being made to provide a variety of solutions to same sex couples.

            Americans also don’t like despots and Federal courts, which is why support for abortion at will is slowly eroding.

            I don’t think most people perceive this case as “being denied the service or being violated of their right to be served by the public business”. Most people feel that there a lot of places to buy flowers and an elderly woman ought to be left alone.

          • Jim Maloney

            Most people feel that there a lot of places to buy flowers and an elderly woman ought to be left alone.

            That is not what the polling is showing ‘most people feel’. The polling also shows most people support that same-sex marriage is now legal across the US after a court decision finished the ‘state’ work as it did in Loving.

            In my opinion, the analogy between abortion cases and LGBT ones hasn’t been very instructive. It’s easier to have sympathy for a fetus no one will personally ever know but harder to be comfortable denying freedoms/rights to LGBTs who are people’s neighbors, family and co-workers. In my opinion, that’s why the LGBT movement has been more successful and will continue to be. As long as it’s about living people’s rights, etc. the deniers will likely lose in the end, and the majority empathizes with that. After all, they wouldn’t want to be denied those services either at will. Additionally, it appears the argument of driving around to other providers is a losing argument with the majority (keeping in mind in small towns there aren’t always other providers).

          • Marty Eble

            I am unable to continue this discussion at the moment.

            Given the flak just trying to parse the Petition created, I will leave it there.

          • GayOldLady

            For your information the 72 yr old grandmother whose rights you so deeply care about is the same age as me. She’s a special delicate flower, we’re nothing. You came here too flaunt what you think is superior knowledge and throw shade, but we’re not impressed. You can say nothing we haven’t heard or read somewhere else. In other words, your boring us. Move along sonny.

          • Marty Eble

            No, I came her to discuss something of interest.

            You decided to flaunt your ignorance and issue “Move along sonny”s.

            I don’t know why, nor do I care, and you have not exhibited any particular insights into the matter discussed or anything else for that matter.

            If you’re bored, stop reading my posts.

          • GayOldLady

            And you addressed me first and repeatedly, so if you want to end this conversation then STFU!!!!

          • Marty Eble

            I am afraid youth defers to age, Granny.

          • GayOldLady

            If so then I’m telling you to leave.

          • Marty Eble

            Go ahead.

          • GayOldLady

            Go ahead!

          • Marty Eble
  • Westcoast88

    Please, someone at that trial has to submit that she was violating the religious freedom of the couple wanting to marry.
    Xtianists aren’t the only people with a right to freedom of religion

    • clay

      Problem with that argument is that Barronelle isn’t the state– it’s not unconstitutional for her to discriminate on the basis of religion. The couple’s case isn’t a religious freedom case.

      • Statistics Palin

        That’s a flawed argument. Freedom of religion has been protected from discrimination by providers of services to the public since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The right to disbelieve a particular religious doctrine is central to Freedom of Religion. Otherwise, Southern Baptists would have to believe in the doctrine of the Real Presence in Communion, Catholics would have to believe in the Muslim doctrine that Jesus wasn’t divine, and Muslims would have to consume alcohol at Communion.

        • clay

          Yes, the Civil Rights Act (and underlying 14th Amendment) is the basis for the couple’s case, not the First Amendment.

          • Statistics Palin

            It is ILLEGALunder the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Baronelle to discriminate on the basis of religion. She is a provider of public goods. she is required to obey Federal Civil Rights Law.

          • clay

            Yes, none of which has to do with the first amendment.

          • Statistics Palin

            That’s a red herring that only you have brought up in this thread.

          • clay

            Actually, Westcoast88 brought it up. It was a violation of their civil rights, not of the their religious freedom.

          • Statistics Palin

            You’re wrong about that, as I’ve demonstrated.

          • Marty Eble

            She is not discriminating on the basis of religion.

          • Statistics Palin

            Fuck off, snake juggler.

          • Marty Eble

            Or you’ll hit me with your purse?

          • Marty Eble

            No, the basis for the case is state law, as in the Colorado case.

            There is no basis for an action of this type under Federal law.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      Pretty soon they will be. Republicans control everything now.

  • Blake J Butler

    If it had been the other way around then it would be wrong, however though gay business owners know they cant pick and choose their customers in public and everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect like everyone else. I don’t have to worry about it being the other way around.

    Meanwhile people like Cottonelle thinks they get to pick and choose their customers in public, refuse service to whomever they want to, in name of their religious beliefs. Opening Pandora’s box of surprises for areas that can get worse and life threatening.

    There is a difference there, between treating everyone with dignity and respect in a public business, and another demanding special rights to treat a minority like shit in name of their beliefs.

  • Gregory Peterson

    That didn’t work for the anti-Gay photographer here in New Mexico.

  • ETownCanuck

    “Go after a 72 year old grandmother for everthing she owns” You mean the well over a hundred thousand dollars gifted to her by your ilk in order to prop up the hate? I hope they take every damn red cent and then some.

    • Marty Eble

      Of course – it’s all about payback.

      • ETownCanuck

        It’s not payback, the funds she received via Gofundme were never hers to begin with. if she loses the tidy profit she’s made off of it, it’ll serve her right.

        • Marty Eble

          So, what do you think her net is after the Gofundme collections, less lost business, less legal fees?

          • ETownCanuck

            Did she really lose any business though? The gays will never use her services for anything again. However, I imagine the fine, upstanding Christians in her town raced right over to support her.

          • Marty Eble

            Probably. I would also imagine the press if this goes to the SCOTUS will cause fallout on both sides.

  • Gerry Fisher

    No one argues that someone shouldn’t have to surrender their freedom to deny service to a black person, a woman, or a vet, just because of their status in a group. It’s just when it comes to the icky geys.

    • Ninja0980

      They aren’t arguing that yet but make no mistake, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be as good as gone if Baronelle and other bigots win their cases.

  • Ben in Oakland

    It’s not a message. It’s a cake.

    • Marty Eble

      How do you feel about naked dancing as a message?

      In Barnes v Glen Theatre, the SCOTUS termed naked dancing “expressive conduct”.

      If the couple just wanted a cake without a message, they could have gone to a supermarket.

      • Xuuths

        Do tell. What was the specific message in the naked dancing of Barnes v. Glen Theatre? Are you so sure? I’m positive it’s sophistry Guarantee you that two people at random won’t agree on what the specific message is.

        Same thing with two people at random won’t agree that a supermarket cake somehow has a different “message” than a bakery shop’s cake, or what the specific message is.

        • Marty Eble

          http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/501/560.html

          The question is not what two people at random think, it is what the artist thinks.

          • tempus

            Did you even bother to read the entire thing? Fat Tony, of course, wanted to violate the First because nudity, and eville sexxxxxxxxxxxxx, and Catlick sociopathy. “Expressive conduct,” by the way, refers to a live performance with the artists present; Cottonelle is not only not an artist, she is never required to haul her stinking and decaying old carcass to any wedding for which she provides flowers. She is no more than a VENDOR (look it up, why don’t you?) who sells SERVICES, which of course falls squarely under public accommodations. No performance, no ‘Happy Gay Wedding from Cottonelle’ required. No harm, no foul.
            You kinda suck at Rethug sophistry and the Big Lie. Just FYI.

          • Marty Eble

            “Expressive conduct” is a legal term of art covering radio, TV, books, newspapers, broadsides, dancing, paintings, nude dancing, any and all items covered by the First Amendment’s free speech provision.

            I provided this particular case as an example.

            Just FYI.

          • tempus

            Yeppurs, and a vicious old bitch who does vomitaceous explosions of flowers can call them none of the items you listed. Nor can she call them ‘art.’ I’ve seen Georgia O’Keeffe, Cottonelle, and you’re no Georgia O’Keeffe.
            That’s the point. This is in no way related to ‘free speech,’ not even in the tortured and perverted sense which wingnut fascists like you wish to give the term. Obviously, you *didn’t* even read the whole thing. LOL.
            Just FYI.

          • Marty Eble

            I wouldn’t go so far as to call your mother “a vicious old bitch who does vomitaceous explosions of flowers”, but you know her better than anyone, right?

          • obiedobie

            Really? “Yo’ momma” is all you’ve got? To quote your idol Il Douche,
            SAD.

          • Marty Eble

            You may want to bring that up with the originator, “tempus”.

          • obiedobie

            ‘Mommy! He started it because he was so mean to me and violated my safe space! I’m just a poor little pee-stained snowflake and my fee-fees are hurt! Only Christofascists like me get to fling insults and hate our neighbors! It’s gawud’s will!’
            You may want to quit while you’re behind.

          • Marty Eble

            I am sure that response took you an hour or more to prepare and required spell checking by an adult.

          • obiedobie

            You might want to look up the word ‘adult,’ as you yourself clearly do not belong to that category and equally clearly do not normally encounter adults on Breitbart, Barb Wire, WND, CNS, and your other hate sites. I assure you, embarrassing you is pitifully easy and takes approximately fifteen seconds tops. The amazing thing is that you, like so many other dRUMPfanzees, keep coming back for more–the very definition of insanity: posting the same exhausted cliches in an attempt to ‘defend yourself’ and expecting different results. 🙂 Alas for you, little attention-seeking troll, I’m bored by you–as is every other intelligent poster on this site. Since you obviously have nothing else to do but desperately seek ‘the last word,’ it’s yours. Isn’t it awful being ignored?

          • Marty Eble

            Thanks for your amazing demonstration of ignorance.

  • Gayskeptic

    Bigotry is not an art form.

  • Natty Enquirer

    “Floral art” speaks of beauty and joy. That’s all. If a viewer looks at the flowers and sees “gay-is-okay,” that is in the mind of the beholder, not the artist. The artist’s expression in arranging the flowers ends when the flowers pass the door.

  • BobSF_94117

    even as she faces losing everything she owns

    She’s facing a $1,000 fine. If she doesn’t want to do SSM, she can stop doing weddings, period. The loss to her business? Negligible. Weddings make up less than 10% of her business.

    I wonder if SCOTUS enjoys being lied to.

    • Natty Enquirer

      Plus $1 in court fees. I know, it’s an outrage.

    • Michael R

      She made it Washington, D.C.to lunch at the Values Voter Summit in 2015 .

    • clay

      She’s retired on the $100,000s of charity donations she received.

    • Marty Eble

      Have you read the “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari” filed with the Supreme Court, or are you just winging it?

      http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersCertPetition.pdf

      • BobSF_94117

        If you expect me to read 54 pages to find your point, my standard rates apply.

        Any hint as to what you object to?

        • Marty Eble

          If you expect to be taken seriously, you need to be able to at least show a de minimus familiarity with the case beyond knowing who and what you like to jump up and down on.

          • BobSF_94117

            I scanned the brief briefly and see nothing but another assertion from ADF that she’s “going to lose everything”.

            Is that proof in your world?

          • Marty Eble

            You should read it, not scan it.

            Let’s test – what did the Petition say about the current state of her business?

            Did it mention any internal or external forces causing her a substantial loss of income?

            If she is compelled to violate her religious beliefs in order to continue in business, did it suggest what decision she might be forced to make?

          • BobSF_94117

            You should save me some time. Otherwise, bye.

          • Marty Eble

            Bye, please.

          • BobSF_94117

            With pleasure. Say hi to her for me!

          • Marty Eble

            Trip on the way out.

  • boobert

    The defense of being a 72 year old grandmother means nothing. She broke the law!

  • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

    Such a special ❄️, that she believes her case to have significance to SCOTUS. Lol

  • gaymex1

    “Art” has changed so much in my lifetime that the term is now essentially meaningless.

    • clay

      “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, . . .

      and the flowers involved in this case are not that.”

      • gaymex1

        lol. Agreed. Her floral hootenannies definitely miss the mark on any level I can discern.
        Edit. BTW, that quote was perfect.

  • Joe

    Baking a cake or assembling floral arraignments for a same-sex wedding is the one sin god won’t forgive?
    She should do gods work and stop trying to do his job.

    • -M-

      Right, all these deeply religious people who don’t think God’s able to deal with sinners on his own. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • “open to the public.” that’s what it means to be in business. if you want to be some kind of special snowflake who only sells to the public that agrees with your narrow religious views, fine. but those will be the ONLY people you’re allowed to make money from by doing business with them. watch how fast a lot of these places would shutter their doors forever, if they were required by law to display a great big sticker on everything from their door to their stationary/website to their product, saying “This place discriminates in the name of (specific cult) and you must present your membership card to (specific cult) in order to enter.” yeah, i don’t think she’d go for that either.

  • Ross

    Well, thank goodness that Barronelle Stutzman doesn’t own a lunch counter, too.

    She would refuse to serve people of color.

    • Schlukitz

      And don’t think that she wouldn’t if she thought that she could get away with it.

      Racism usually goes hand-in-hand with homophobia.

    • clay

      “It doesn’t fit with her artistic expression.”

    • Marty Eble

      Are you suggesting that there is expressive conduct in serving lunch off a menu?

  • Brooklyn Joe

    It’s a test balloon – they want to see if it will fly with SCOTUS

    • Stubenville

      I hope they shoot it down with a bazooka.

    • Marty Eble

      Yes, I agree. The LBGT lobby wants to try to score another Obergefell v. Hodges through this case or the Masterpiece case in Colorado.

  • Stubenville

    Does selling a handgun to someone who commits a crime make you an accessory? No? Case dismissed.

    • Marty Eble

      Are you suggesting the couple was committing a crime?

      • Stubenville

        No. I’m suggesting that selling a product to the public (floral arrangements) in no way makes you a participant in the nuptials.

        • Marty Eble

          The issues brought to the SCOTUS are:

          “The Washington Supreme Court found no violation of the First Amendment because it deemed Barronelle’s creation of artistic expression to be conduct that is not “inherently expressive,” and thus incapable of implicating the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion. This reasoning conflicts with the precedent of this Court and the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.”

          “The questions presented are:”

          “1. Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and if so, whether compelling their creation violates the Free Speech Clause.”

          “2. Whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one’s religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.”

          The Petition indicates she offered to sell to the couple the arrangements themselves without her attendance.

  • Hanwi

    If you are involved in marriages where people were previously married or if the straight folk engaged in premarital sex then your beliefs are not worth the paper they are written on. All straight folk should have to answer a questionnaire before those right with jesus will serve them.

  • BobSF_94117

    Notice how Arlene’s Flowers is now a “family business”.

    • clay

      Notice how Barronelle retired as soon as she got that charity money?

      • BobSF_94117

        Retired?

        • clay

          Yep. She’ no longer in the florist industry.

          • BobSF_94117

            Do you have a source? I’ve never heard that she did that. The website for the business still has posts from her.

            Maybe you’re thinking of the OR bakers who first moved their business to their home and then later closed it entirely.

          • clay

            Maybe she returned, but the early news stories were that she was 6 months from retiring, anyway.

          • BobSF_94117

            Sounds like her previous ploy was, “oh, I’m a poor old lady about to retire… please just let me be a bigot until my last working day…”.

          • Marty Eble

            How dare she assert her constitutional rights only six months from retirement

            Do you have any other exceptions in mind?

            How about statistically liable to die within the year?

    • Gigi

      My friend Adam, his husband Steven and their two children are a family. Will Arlene’s do floral arrangements for them when they have a ceremony to reaffirm their vows?

      • Marty Eble

        No.

    • Marty Eble

      It always was. It was founded by her mother.

      In 1982 she took over the day to day management, and she purchased from her mother in 2000.

      Although she has had employees (not currently due to her loss of business), including LGBT employees, she is the owner of the business which is her sole means of support.

      • BobSF_94117

        Her Facebook page has employees on it and she talks about her wonderful staff.

        “Family business” means, at least to most people, that family memberS work there. This is just the ADF milking people’s emotions. It’s a sole proprietorship and she hired/hires employees. (Some of whom might luv to make floral arrangements for gay couples, but SHE won’t let them.)

        You’re making assertions that contradict her own website. Either you’re lying or she is.

        • Marty Eble

          Or you’re misreading things and just cherry picking what you want.

          I feel quite confident the lawyers on both sides know the penalties for knowingly filing falsehoods.

          • BobSF_94117

            Yes, I’m cherry picking her use of the plural to describe her staff…

          • Marty Eble

            I thought we were done?

            Okay, since you insist I checked out Facebook and found:

            “Pam Tritto · 8 hours ago
            If
            you are going to this florist you should know that the person you are
            and the way you live your life will determine whether you can purchase
            something here. The owner is a Christian extremist who only serves
            those that she determines to be living a life she approves of.”

            One of your friends?

            Anyway, I see a huge number of stock photos for various commercial items like gas-filled balloons.

            Daily posts are fairly innocuous, punctuated by comments like

            “J Arland Jackson Your
            BIGOTRY is disguised by religion! You WILL be judged for your
            judgements! Hopefully your bigotry and hate will smack you in the face!
            You’re BREAKING THE LAW!”

            and see nothing which would allow me to assess how many, if any, staff she currently has or how her business is going.

            I am sure you can find someone else with whom you can be pointlessly argumentative with.

  • Kelly Lape

    I’m glad she learned her “Christianity” from Jesus. Jesus would never serve someone who wasn’t perfect.

  • Gigi

    “You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” — Anne Lamott

    [I’ve posted this before but it seems fitting here.]

  • bsinps

    NOw it’s “Artistic Expression” not because to gay men asked her to do the flowers for their wedding? How f-ing. It’s not as though no one has herd of her refusal reasons before.

  • Robincho

    There I was, thinking that by this time Cottonelle was a wrap…

  • Ninja0980

    You chose to operate a business that serves the public and thus obey the discrimination laws of your state.
    Can’t handle that, then don’t open a business.

    • Marty Eble

      In this case the application of this particular appears to violate some constitutional rights.

      • ErickMN

        No. Businesses don’t have constitutional rights.

        • Marty Eble

          Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)

          Apparently few of the commenters are evenly vaguely familiar with the law.

          • ErickMN

            That’s not a public accommodation case. Apparently you don’t understand the issues involved.

          • Marty Eble

            ErickMN > Marty Eble

            ‘No. Businesses don’t have constitutional rights’

            Marty Eble > ErickMN

            “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)”

            “Apparently few of the commenters are evenly vaguely familiar with the law.”

            “That’s not a public accommodation case.” appears to have dropped into the conversation from outer space.

            Apparently you don’t understand the issues involved.

            Yes, businesses have constitutional rights.

          • ErickMN

            You are wrong. Tha decision did not address the issues from a constitutional perspective. And it has
            no bearing on public accommodation cases that deny civil rights to individuals.

            You are, of course, welcome to misunderstand the case. And I am welcome to call that out.

          • Marty Eble

            Okay, let’s go through this piece by piece.

            1 – Barronelle Stutzman, an individual, has constitutional rights.

            2 – Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., is a corporation solely owned by Barronelle Stutzman

            3 – In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010) the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) held (5–4) held that freedom of speech applies to nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

            4 – in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) the SCOTUS struck down an HHS mandate, as applied to closely held corporations with religious objections.

            The Court stated that the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of shareholders, officers, and employees. It said that “allowing Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the Greens and the Hahns.”

            5 – In that same decision, the Court rejected the HHS providing “a binding national answer” to the moral questions raised by Hobby Lobby. The Court argued that federal courts should not answer religious questions because they would in effect be deciding whether certain beliefs are flawed. This, of course, is what the Washington courts purport to be able to do in contravention of the First Amendment.

            6 – Therefore, Arlene Flowers, which is a for-profit corporation, has freedom of speech because Barronelle Stutzman, the sole shareholder, has freedom of speech which must be protected.

            7 – Also therefore the state of Washington may not establish by statute or court decision a religious belief that Barronelle Stutzman must comport with because in doing it would favor one religious belief over another, which establishes a religion, which is a prohibited state action.

            In general corporations have all the rights of individuals acting as a group, but are not able to claim constitutional protections that can only be exercised on an individual basis, such as the right against self-incrimination.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

          • ErickMN

            Wow, that’s quite a the stretch. You are, of course, welcome to believe whatever delusional rubbish you’d like, and suffer the reality-based disappointments that follow. Thanks for the laughs!

          • Marty Eble

            Apparently you have no legal background, beyond perhaps a minor criminal record.

            Risus abundat in ore stultorum.

          • ErickMN

            Then again I didn’t even finish high school so don’t take my opinion for legal advice.

        • ErickMN

          I’m sorry. They do have rights. My bad.

  • Geoffrey Snyder

    If the Alliance Defending Freedom had tried, they could have spun that to make is sound as insidious as possible. They’re not even trying any longer.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      With four moderates and five rabidly right-wing conservatives, the Supreme Court is on their side, and they know it.

  • Tor

    For whatever reason, she did, indeed, break the law.

    • joe ho

      But now a Trump-packed federal judiciary will be able to decide whether those laws are unconstitutional are not.

      Liberals too lazy or too righteous to vote for Hillary made a very bad mistake.

      • Ninja0980

        So did mainstream Democrats who in wanting to reach across the aisle let Republicans abuse the blue slip and keep those seats open.
        The same blue slip they are now going to do away with, just like they did under Bush.
        Our side doesn’t take the courts seriously at all and until that changes, we will continue to lose elections.

      • Tor

        Please don’t remind me. I’m just trying to get through this without losing my mind.

  • AJD

    I have to say, for the first time I’m genuinely worried. The facts of these cases are firmly on our side – these people blatantly violated anti-discrimination laws, independent of same-sex marriage. But I don’t trust Gorsuch to vote objectively.

  • andrew

    Who knew that there are so many straight florists? I thought that was a gig we gays had sewed up.

  • FormerMainer

    I personally don’t care if the florist is required to make the arrangements or not. The bigger concern, and the only real meaningful one, is that if an exception to nondiscrimination laws is allowed here, it may be the beginning to more extensive and dangerous exceptions.

  • anne marie in philly

    you deserve NOTHING, cottonelle! you discriminated, pure and simple. GTFO of business if you wantonly refuse to serve ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THETIME!

  • Piet

    For four years, ADF has been lying about the civil penalties Barronelle faces. She does not face losing everything she owns, and never did. Just another instance of the Christianists’ propensity to lie in Jesus’ name, even though their holy book commands them not to bear false witness.

    • Marty Eble

      As the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari describes

      http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersCertPetition.pdf

      she has been boycotted and threatened.

      Due to her religious beliefs, if unsuccessful she will have to close her business.

      The legal fees alone would have put her out of business were it not for donations by supporters and pro bono legal representation offered.

      Apparently you’re not commanded to refrain from false witness by …. whatever.

      • Piet

        If you are relying on assertions made by ADF in their filings, you’re depending on truth twisted and stre-e-e-e-etched so far it no longer qualifies. Just for starters, the government fine was less than $2,000; between GoFundMe and ContinueToFund, she and her sympathizers have managed to raise close to $190,000.

        And considering how often and how shrill are the calls for boycotts coming from the Christian right for violations of their “Biblical morality”, I think I’ll suggest she brace herself for similar treatment. I bet people were willing to fly in from all over the country just so they could stand outside and boycott her business.

        P.S.-About those legal fees, the ones she is _not_ being charged, you know, because the legal representation is pro bono . . . I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for her there.

        • Marty Eble

          I am having a hard time reading your rant.

  • Ken M

    Two for the price of one.. Her case is even worse. She sold the couple flowers for their “anniversaries” before they could be legally married. They went to her because there had NEVER been an issue. THEY LIKED HER!

    • coram nobis

      Were ADF plaintiff-shopping? This sounds too convenient.

      • Marty Eble

        Was the ACLU plaintiff shopping?

        The answer, btw, is yes.

  • Regan DuCasse

    Over the years of debating people who support the bakers and florists and county clerks pulling this shit, several things are abundantly clear.

    1. That these people know nothing about the intent and purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and it’s protection of everyone.

    2. That the behavior of these vendors is cafeteria religious belief, in which there is no rational purpose that can be acceptable in public exchange of goods and services.
    For example: we all know there are other sexual morality criteria that other patrons would meet, these vendors don’t choose to be so religious when it comes to serving THEM.
    3. None of them have actually experienced or had to endure Jim Crow. They agree on how reprehensible it was, but somehow twist logic to believe that gay people however are fair game for similar discrimination.
    4. When I explain to them that if they want to be consistent as believers over sexual morality, and this is about free association then the bakers are OBLIGATED to post distinctive signage that’s SPECIFIC about not serving gay people.
    None of this amorphous “we reserve the right to refuse service” crap, because that doesn’t inform the public so THEY can freely associate.
    No, let this florist say it, “we reserve the right to not serve gay people”.
    But we all know why they won’t do that.

    That’s only a part of what moral and intellectual cowardice we’re dealing with.

  • TuuxKabin

    “Barronelle has endured the litigation in this case with unwavering grace.”

    And doesn’t it just show in her eyes.

  • -M-

    Remember how Marcus Bachman was shocked that Indiana’s? ‘discriminate against the gays if you want law’ could be used against him? Careful what you wish for would be theocrats and psuedo-libertarians.

    • -M-

      Also if she doesn’t like the non-discrimination laws in Washington, Barronelle has plenty of other states with laws more to her liking to choose from. These are the same people who said that gays who wanted marriage rights or want all their civil rights and equal protection under the law should just move instead of trying to get their Constitutional rights enforced in Texas or wherever.

  • Len Ricci

    OMG she’s back.. she must have already blown thru the GO FUND ME money she got already… now she wants SCOTUS to protect her petty business from us icky and pesky gay people… Let’s all let out a collective AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    • Oshtur

      I’ve always wondered if these ‘pro bono’ deal with the devil ADF means it get all such monies raised for the client.

  • Oshtur

    The first amendment protects the customer and their right to have their own beliefs about marriage.

    This is about businesses that wants to be able to invite the public to come to their store and then selectively reject particular responding customers because of their beliefs and what they let them do with their purchase, whether it be have a same-sex marriage, an interfaith, interracial, Muslim, Wiccan etc. one; i.e. they want a right of religious discrimination of customers.

    Civil rights laws protect customers responding to a public offer from such invidious discrimination.

    The Hobby Lobby ruling is no help since it hinged on the employees still getting their mandated coverage just as these responding customers would still get their wedding services. It most certainly doesn’t allow refusing a customer service consistent with their civil rights as stated in the ruling about what it does not do:

    “Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” p. 6

    No business owner has a right to invite a group comprised of all beliefs and then say they will only let responding customers who share their’s about marriage buy the advertised wedding products. Obviously the customer’s own rights to religious liberties shields them from any religious orthodoxy requirement the business might toss their way.

    If the owner feels they can’t sell something to a public of all creeds as required by law the solution is obvious, so obvious that Masterpiece Cakeshop and Arlene’s Flowers have been doing it for over 4 years:

    Don’t offer that something to the public at all.

    • -M-
    • Marty Eble

      The First Amendment protects every citizen from being compelled to utter speech with which she or he disagrees.

      Every citizen has a right to be free from being compelled to engage in expressive conduct with which he or she is diametrically opposed to.

      In this case what was being offered was not 12 roses for $x, but a custom floral arrangement celebrating or marking a particular event.

      • Oshtur

        The First Amendment protects every citizen from being compelled to utter speech with which she or he disagrees.

        But obeying the law is not compelled speech. They are offering these services for sale, all providing them says is that they owner makes good on their invitations as the law requires.

        In this case what was being offered was not 12 roses for $x, but a custom floral arrangement celebrating or marking a particular event.

        And the business owner of their own free will offered custom floral arrangements for weddings to the public knowing before hand they could not refuse a customer because of their creed, séx or sexual orientation. If that was not amenable to them they wouldn’t have made the offer of that sale to the public in the first place.

        • Marty Eble

          In this case the law is attempting to compel specific expressive conduct.

          While this exact situation has not been reviewed by the SCOTUS, in 2006 in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

          This individual was not offering 12 roses for $x, or a #6 floral arrangement for $y. She offered custom arrangements that required extensive consultation with the client and expertise on her part.

          She is not McDonald’s.

  • helenwheels74

    these people need protection from the liberal agenda of equal human rights! maybe they’d be happier in antarctica with all the other snowflakes; far, far away from we blasphemous humanists and our demonic progressivism? it’s not the consumers’ job to pussyfoot around the biblical fragilities of the entrepreneurs. if bible school means more to you than business school, you don’t belong in the secular world and you should go cloister yourself.

    • Marty Eble

      These people need protection from jackboot Nazis who think that everyone else’s rights are forfeit.

  • Jack

    “It’s hardly disputed that artistic expression, such as floral art, is speech.”

    Seems they haven’t read the decision of the state supreme court.

    Well, the Court is hearing Masterpiece. It’s the same sh*t.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I know we are aware of their hypocrisy, but it’s still staggering. They want to be able to discriminate, but if we discriminate, I.e. boycott, we are punishing them.

    • Friday

      Christianists believe everyone else’s labor, money, and lives money are already theirs, and that when they sell us something, *that’s* still theirs, ..and they’re *so* oppressed if they can’t treat all other religious beliefs and any minority they feel like as lesser citizens, if that, without everyone else’s obedient silence. (While of course they get to be as rude and nasty as they feel like as long as they stick a cross on it and it’s a right-wing view.)

  • Michael Hampton

    Ugh. Their lies about her are disgusting.

  • Friday

    Somehow selling a flower arrangement or a cake becomes a different ‘artistic expression’ depending on who’s buying? They really expect SCOTUS to say so with a straight face, or are they counting on Fundie Drumphist apointees?

    • djcoastermark

      Yes, they really are counting on drumpists. They will twist it to the point that my word, she had to be there to watch and participate in the consumation of the wedding vows . oh boy.

    • Marty Eble

      Expressive conduct is defined by the artist, not the buyer.

      • Friday

        The transaction seems to have moved toward ‘[participating in a religious ceremony.’ If this were just about the limits of what’s artistic expression, it shouldn’t be suits against civil rights protections for a particular set of minorities.

        • Marty Eble

          In the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari it relates “…. part of Barronelle’s wedding business involves attending and facilitating the ceremony itself and Barronelle simply could not reconcile her faith with celebrating and participating in a same-sex wedding.”

          “Barronelle concluded that, although she would gladly sell pre-made arrangements and raw materials for use at a same-sex ceremony, the substantial participation and intricacy involved in designing custom arrangements to celebrate a marriage that is not between a man and a woman would damage her relationship with God.“

          It does not appear relevant to the questions presented to the Court for resolution:

          “The questions presented are:”

          “1. Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and if so, whether compelling their creation violates the Free Speech Clause. “

          “2. Whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one’s religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.”

          neither of which hinge on her participation or non-participation.

          • Friday

            Except that’s not her initial acts, or complaint, or taking into account that she prevented employees from making the arrangements cash and carry, you’re the only one I’ve ever even heard mention anything *about* so much as attending, but she prevented even her employees from selling anything to the couple.

            So who says ‘It says?’ We’re not exactly dealing with honest people in these Christianist hate groups.

          • Marty Eble

            I’ve provided the citation for the Petition to the Supreme Court a number of times. I would read it.

            Btw, I find the term “Christianist” offensive.

            Certainly feel free to use it, but if you use it in writing me, I will consider it an invitation.

          • Friday

            That doesn’t mean the hate-group lawyers who are known for lying on TV are telling the *truth* if you ‘cite’ them.

            Right-wing Christianists may base their hate-politics and claims on Christianity, but you don’t get extra help from me in your claims to represent even a majority of American Christians in these injustices you want to impose on others.

          • Marty Eble

            Thank for your tale from the Far Side.

          • Friday

            The proven-dishonest lawyers’ version of the story on *this* appeal doesn’t mean that’s even their previous attempts at spin, never mind what actually occurred.

          • Marty Eble

            Obviously you haven’t bother to acquaint yourself with any facts.

            Apparently so far in life that approach has not killed you, else your posts would not continue to appear.

  • BSSF

    Baronelle dear, if everyone’s telling you you’re dead, its time to lie down.

  • Making floral arrangements may involve “artistic expression.” However, there isn’t anything innately straight or gay about the way flowers are arranged – so just like the “‘sincerely held’ religious belief” argument, this “art expression” argument doesn;t pass a sniff test.

  • KnownDonorDad

    I wonder how Neil Gorsuch is going to vote on this? It’s a real head-scratcher, it is.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      Don’t wonder about it too long…

  • JCF

    I can’t imagine Cottonelle really “appeals” to anyone…

  • Dean Cameron

    Losing everything she owns over a $1,000 ine?
    That Business must operate on a VERY narrow Profit Margin!

  • Commentator8

    She doesn’t risk losing everything, they just want to paint her as someone unfairly targeted. It’s utter bullshit. All they want to do is deny and reverse our legal rights period.