Brickbat: No Bed of Roses

|

Credit: Sailor Coruscant / photo on flickr

A Washington state judge has fined florist Baronelle Stutzman $1,000 for refusing to sell a gay couple flowers for their wedding. She said her Christian beliefs prevented her from selling the flowers. She was also ordered to pay $1 for court fees.

NEXT: The physics of drying your hands

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Homosexuality is a deadly perversion. Molestation is what passes for reproduction with them. Libertarians also support bestiality and other paraphilias. Bestiality can have some really horrific consequences, such as this lamb born with a human face in Muslim Dagestan in Russia. Maybe you also like Muslims because of the results of sexual perversions such as that poor lamb.

    The Trayvon Martin Lied

    “There’s no need to fear — Underzog is here.”

    1. D-. Way over the top. Comes off like it was written by an 8th grader. The abrupt change of subject is the only thing that saves you from a failing grade. Try harder next time.

    2. I bet he’s an absolute blast at parties.

      8.5/10 would keg stand with

    3. I could almost buy that if you had said the lamb was born in New Zealand.

      1. I could almost buy that if you had said the lamb was born in New ZeaScotland.

  2. $1 court fee? Is that some sort of statutory minimum? As in the judge was saying “Law says I have to levy a fine, and this is the lowest I can go”?

    “My primary goal has always been to end illegal discrimination,” Ferguson said

    So why are you discriminating against the florist?

    1. He said “illegal” discrimination. It’s perfectly legal to discriminate against this florist. In fact, it would be illegal to not discriminate against the florist.

      1. Malicious prosecution is a crime. One that is not prosecuted nearly enough.

    2. You beat me to it, UnCiv.

      I think the answer is akin to “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

      From the article after the link: “Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom’s order on Friday also bars Stutzman and her Richland shop, Arlene’s Flowers, from offering goods or services to straight couples that aren’t also made available to same-sex couples, the statement said.”

      Discrimination based upon religious belief/personal conviction (which only impacts willing customers who chose a proprietor’s business) = illegal.
      State-sanctioned discrimination which impacts everyone = legal.

      Did I understand correctly?

  3. If Hitler had been able to make his living as a painter, the state of Washington would have had to fine him $1,001, too. Think about it.

    1. Painter Hitler would have moved to Washington State?

      1. You’re thinking too much about it.

      2. The banana of Idaho.

    2. Is that because Hilter the Painter wouldn’t knowingly paint for homosexuals, Jews, Gypsies, the handicapped, et cetera?

      1. No, because he’d become a community organizer in his spare time, form and lead a national socialist party to power, start a war that a third of the eurasian continent and implements a genocidial program that kills tens of millions of people.

        His painting isn’t the issue.

        1. “If Hitler had been able to make his living as a painter, the state of Washington would have had to fine him $1,001, too. Think about it.”

          I’m not sure you addressed Fist’s cynically inane point, Stroke Six.

        2. His painting wasn’t all that great either. If it was, he might have spent his days daubing paint on canvas instead of causing mayhem.

          1. If you could go back in time once, you could hire someone to teach him to be a successful painter and thereby make the world a better place.

            Or shoot him in the head with a Luger 9mm.
            I like that option better.
            https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Luger+9mm

              1. Thanks, db.

                Now I know about the International Association of Time Travelers Bulletin 1147 (regarding the killing of Hitler).

                The exchanges on that thread make for great reading.
                Thanks again.

          2. You know who else was responsible for a war and whose paintings weren’t that good?

            1. Too narrow, sloopy, not enough room for unexpected answers.

            2. Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV?

            3. Helen of Troy?

              1. +1 Producers

                “But nobody ever said a bad word about Winston Churchill, did they? No! ‘Win with Winnie!’ Churchill! With his cigars, with his brandy. And his ROTTEN painting! Rotten! Hitler, THERE was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon ? two coats!”

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl_rufmxYbA

      2. The actual Hitler sold many of his paintings to Jewish art dealers, in an odd bit of historical trivia.

  4. Not right.

    This is not right.

    Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed are not heroes.

    They’re jerks.

    Take your business elsewhere jackoffs.

    1. Rufus,

      “The Barronelle Stutzman Story” is approximately seven minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDETkcCw63c

      Mrs. Stutzman: “It was a real struggle, to decide what to do with that. My husband and I talked it over, you know. As much as I love Rob [Ingersoll] I just couldn’t, couldn’t be a part of that. If I did Rob’s wedding it would be from my heart, because I, I think he’s a really special person, and I would want to make it really special for him.

      ? When I talked to Rob I did not think this would be a major issue. I was very surprised of that.”

      The Attorney General started his lawsuit, Rufus, and afterward Messieurs Ingersoll and Freed started their own. I thought it telling that the Attorney General’s lawsuit targets Mrs. Stutzman’s business as well her personal finances (vehicles, home, et cetera).
      This smacks of viciousness.

    2. “Take your business elsewhere jackoffs.”

      According to that video they even received offers of free bouquets from other florists, but they still wouldn’t drop the case. Total jerks.

      1. Yes – they were offered 20 weddings’ worth of free flowers by other florists, if I recall correctly.

        I don’t understand the animosity from the two men, especially Mr. Ingersoll, with whom she seemed to have a close friendship.

        1. What self-respecting, stereotypical gay couple has to go to a straight florist?

          In some things, I am an admirer of Robert Ingersoll.

          Kevin R

  5. These anti-discrimination laws bring force to bear on only one party, in this case the florist. No one else is being prevented from doing anything or having anything taken away from them.

    There is only one victim in this story and it ain’t the gay couple.

  6. Something tells me none of this is about flowers or cakes.

    1. So, can this precedent be used to get a Westboro Baptist Bouquet from the Flaming Florist?

      1. It can certainly be used to force muslim butchers to serve yummy, yummy bacon.

        1. I’m too lazy to look it up, but yesterday someone claimed that Muslim cashiers did not have to ring up pork products.

          1. I read it as well. And from what I see its a Target company policy rather than a law.

            IOWA, Target has determined they will make it a store policy to deal with a problem. Just like the owners of this flower shop did. Target will be applauded while this shop is fined.

    2. It’s always about cakes

      1. They all want cakes.

        1. But do they travel in packs?

          1. No, but that doesn’t mean you should lock eyes with them.
            Don’t do it.

  7. Ingersoll and Freed were longtime customers of Stutzman’s

    That discriminating bitch!

  8. She was probably rich from collecting Kochtopus dark money anyway. Not like the poor White House florist. (wait, am I supposed to feel bad for the White House florist for getting canned from her noble public service position or hate the florist for displeasing his majesty?) /prog

  9. “She said her Christian beliefs prevented her from selling the flowers.” Exactly how? I’m at a loss to understand this notion that selling a good you already market to one type of customer is affecting your practice of religion.

    You are not asked to attend the event or to act as a witness to the event. Had someone else purchased the flowers without letting on to their intended use would she run to take them back if told of the ruse?

    By her reasoning, any Christian selling guns must stop because the buyer might murder another and afterall, that is against one of the precepts of the religion. And well, electricity, right?

    1. I think you answered your own question. If you feel like being a party to something would make you morally culpable, there’s a good chance you wouldn’t do it. If she sold guns and thought someone wanted to use it for murder, she’d probably try not to sell it to them. As I think most people would.

    2. Watch the video I mentioned to Rufus and I think you’ll understand her point of view better, even if you still don’t agree with it.

      Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDETkcCw63c

      1. Good video. It should lay to rest the myth that those decisions only come from hatred.

      2. Can you put it in words for those of us at work? Because I’m with Stilgar – I don’t get this mindset at all.

        So far I’m not seeing anything other than she’s using her religion as an excuse to be a bigot. NTTIAWWT.

        1. She was friends with at least one of them and had served him many times before, but because of the religious significance she attaches to marriage she respectfully told them she couldn’t do their wedding. Why would she wait until the marriage to decline serving him if she was just a bigot? It would be like saying a Muslim butcher is racist because he wouldn’t serve pork to a black man, even if he was willing to give him chicken or beef.

          1. Not that bigots aren’t also deserving of freedom of speech, but this story really shows the mendacity of the side that wants to control Christian business owners. They’ll gladly portray a nice old lady as a bigot if it gets more to their side.

          2. Some friend. Look, I’m not religious so I perhaps I am simply incapable of understanding this reasoning.

            I agree on the whole with the consesus here – these guys are jerks, right to refuse service, etc.

            I just don’t get the religion angle. At. All.

            1. It should be easy to understand, just hypothetically substitute it for any morality you want. I don’t see what’s so difficult. I’m not Muslim but if I went to Target and a Muslim wouldn’t serve me ham, I’d just ask if there was someone else who could help me. I wouldn’t get upset.

              1. It’s not about religion, it’s about accepting that others have different viewpoints.

              2. substitute it for any morality you want

                Fair enough. But religion does get special protection in cases like this, doesn’t it?

                1. “But religion does get special protection in cases like this, doesn’t it?”

                  No Rhywun, unless by religion you mean same-sex marriage.

                  The court decided against Mrs. Stutzman (who declined to provide her services for a wedding on religious grounds) and decided for Mr. Ingersoll (who was protected by the state’s Consumer Protection Act).

        2. I think that “lap83” has summed it up quite well, Rhywun.

          Did you read my post to Rufus from 8:32 this morning? I typed out what Mrs. Stutzman said regarding Rob Ingersoll. If you still think she’s a bigot after reading that, I’d be surprised.
          Also remain cognizant of the fact that she had arranged flowers for Messieurs Ingersoll and Freed at their requests for approximately 9 years. It was the wedding she couldn’t in good conscience contribute to. Additionally, she employed LGBT individuals, which is hard to reconcile with the claims of bigotry.

          Here is a paragraph from he letter to Attorney general Ferguson:

          “I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.”
          http://www.fpiw.org/blog/2015/…..y-general/

          1. I’m an atheist. If I refused to provide a service to any religious event would I be in violation?

            Not that I’d do that. If you wanted to buy stuff to placate Great Cthulhu, (may the Dread One devour us first), I’d be right there to sell to you. But, I’d like to be free to say “no.”

            Kevin R

  10. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.