Appellate Court Rules Against Florist

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/washington-court-rules-against-florist-in-gay-wedding-case/ar-AAn1dHX?ocid=spartandhp

[debbym]

i agree it is no different then providing flowers for someone who is atheist, or Muslim, you are not condoning their religion or values by providing wedding flowers or cake...

then cashiers in stores would not have to ring up a wedding cake at the cash register if it was an apparent gay couple... or apparently Muslim... this is not right.

God is in charge and We are not the judge God is.

the roman soldiers were very repulsive in their demands and lifestyles, but jesus said carry their load two miles if they ask... by doing this Christians were not condoning what the roman soldiers did in their lifestyles or belief systems...

There were believers who served the Caesar's in Rome and they did not participate in the sins of their employer by doing so.

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, debbym said:

i agree it is no different then providing flowers for someone who is atheist, or Muslim, you are not condoning their religion or values by providing wedding flowers or cake...

then cashiers in stores would not have to ring up a wedding cake at the cash register if it was an apparent gay couple... or apparently Muslim... this is not right.

God is in charge and We are not the judge God is.

the roman soldiers were very repulsive in their demands and lifestyles, but jesus said carry their load two miles if they ask... by doing this Christians were not condoning what the roman soldiers did in their lifestyles or belief systems...

There were believers who served the Caesar's in Rome and they did not participate in the sins of their employer by doing so.

For those that feel strongly enough on this subject to risk their business and their families financial security who agrees with them is probably not a high priority. Yes God is in charge and He doesn't give anyone the right to decide for others what is the christian thing to do. Along with

jesus said carry their load two miles if they ask   

some still  believe they are to obey the laws of the land UNTIL and If they believe it violates the law of God.  What you or I see as a non issue  is irrelevant. For those that believe the facilitating the celebration of something God calls an abomination is something they can't do are no more wrong than you are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cashiers do not have any control over what the company they work for sells.

[Gregory Matthews]

There is a point at which people who do not believe that they can obey the law must decide to place themselves in a situation where that law does not apply to them.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

6 hours ago, debbym said:

i agree it is no different then providing flowers for someone who is atheist, or Muslim, you are not condoning their religion or values by providing wedding flowers or cake...

then cashiers in stores would not have to ring up a wedding cake at the cash register if it was an apparent gay couple... or apparently Muslim... this is not right.

God is in charge and We are not the judge God is.

the roman soldiers were very repulsive in their demands and lifestyles, but jesus said carry their load two miles if they ask... by doing this Christians were not condoning what the roman soldiers did in their lifestyles or belief systems...

There were believers who served the Caesar's in Rome and they did not participate in the sins of their employer by doing so.

I disagree.

Selling a cake as a store cashier is fundamentally different from the Ann's Flowers case.  I would point out the following:

1) The cashier did not make, bake, and decorate the cake with words glorifying atheism, homosexuality, or other infidel concepts or behaviors.

2) The cashier might not even know the beliefs of the customer; unlike the Ann's Flowers case where those beliefs were prominent and virtually "in your face." 

3) The store products do not typically get used to support the reputation of the store: most often they go by brands that have their own names and reputations, e.g. Kellogg's, Campbell's, Western Foods, Kraft, etc., unlike Ann's Flowers where the floral designs would typically be honored in the bulletin for the event, such as "Floral arrangements provided by Ann's Flowers."  This sort of acknowledgment could be thought of as an endorsement.

I would refer to Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, especially this latter, as the scriptures to support my belief on this issue.  The essence of the Bible teaching I see there is this: It's not wrong to do something where others will not be offended nor view us in support of something wrong if we are able to do so privately and if it is not wrong in and of itself--but where others will see, know, and see us as misrepresenting the truth, that same action becomes sin.  The Bible example is that of eating foods offered to idols.  If you went to the marketplace and bought fruit that you knew might have been so offered, it would be no sin to eat it, because the fruit was still good and fit for food, and of course the idol was just a hunk of stone or wood that had not altered the properties of the fruit one iota.  However, if your neighbor had seen that fruit offered, and knew it was offered, and perhaps even pointed it out to you, it would now be wrong to give him or her a cause for stumbling by eating it, thus showing your own respect (within that person's viewpoint) for said idols.

In this case, Ann's Flowers took the moral high ground.  I feel ashamed that in America today, consciences are being violated in this manner by unjust laws. 

[CoAspen]

Quote

.... consciences are being violated in this manner by unjust laws. 

And I feel the same when I see or hear of others refusing to furnish a business  or treat others based on religion, color, nationality , etc. Wait a minute....this is not really about any of those, is it? It's about sex!!!

[Green Cochoa]

2 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Wait a minute....this is not really about any of those, is it? It's about sex!!!

You're right.  It's about immorality.  The Bible is clear on it, and people have a right to live according to their conscience in it.  I know a waitress who refused to get the license to serve alcohol because she could not in good conscience serve it.  Without the license, the restaurant manager could not legally allow her to serve it. 

I hope you would not be one to say the waitress should have been forced, against her conscience, to obtain said license and to serve the alcohol.

The issue becomes one of conscience: Are people in America still free to follow individual convictions?

[CoAspen]

If that was a condition of employment, that the owner could have fired her if he choose to do so and she should not have recourse in my opinion. Not a good example as the employee has a choice to accept job requirements or not before employment. To do so afterwards, if there is a change of position, an honest person would request a waiver or resign.

So I take it that your position is that it is okay to discriminate, when you have a business to serve the public, if it doesn't meet your Biblical values. Discrimination! Sorry, do not want to live in that environment. That is truly a slippery slope. This country is not a theocracy but a democracy. Your scenario opens the system to a wide multitude of abuses. Individual convictions are not being abused in the all to common business environment stories. It is akin to saying that a gay person has no right to eat or live if everyone felt the same as those who refuse to serve them or provide goods. Lets not forget all of the other 'sexual' misconducts! Oh, wait! Lets not forget about all sins! Wow, Lets live in a place where perfection is a requirement for life. (I think that is callled heaven, courtesy of Christ) Our freedom stops where anothers begins. We can make choices, operate a business for all or don't. Work for an employer or not. If you can't practice your religion in  the way you want, than don't open a business where you feel you should be able to discriminate based on your beliefs. No, I do not believe in a God that allows us to treat others in that manner. I also find it offensive to see the Bible used in such a manner. 

Sorry, I do not see this in any way a matter of conscience, just plain old garden variety discrimination.

[Green Cochoa]

10 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

So I take it that your position is that it is okay to discriminate, when you have a business to serve the public, if it doesn't meet your Biblical values.

My position is simply that a person has a right to follow his or her conscience.  Even if you do not regard the action of serving alcohol as a matter of conscience, you can have no jurisdiction over others' consciences on the matter.  It is not a Christian who would pressure someone else to act contrary to his or her conscience, nor to impugn someone's convictions as a matter of "discrimination."

[Green Cochoa]

17 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

Your scenario opens the system to a wide multitude of abuses. Individual convictions are not being abused in the all to common business environment stories. It is akin to saying that a gay person has no right to eat or live if everyone felt the same as those who refuse to serve them or provide goods.

You're building straw men.  No one, that I know of, has made an example of refusing to feed gay people.  What was refused by the florist was the action of celebrating and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle of the gay couple.  Would Jesus have done this?  That is the important question.

Jesus' first miracle during His ministry was at a wedding of the sort honored by God.  Sodom was treated by God in an altogether different manner.

Really...do you believe Jesus would have provided flowers for the wedding of a homosexual couple?  If not, do you believe Jesus asks His followers to do any differently than He would?  If so, do you believe the Bible when it calls such homosexual acts an "abomination" (see Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 22:5; 23:18)?

I believe Jesus would have sent the homosexuals away with the words "Go, and sin no more."

[Gregory Matthews]

In the case of the florist, it may be of value to know the facts.   The following will provide some of those facts as well as the thinking that the various parties to this case had.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/20170216WaggonerMediaBriefingStatement.pdf

2013-09-23--Decl of R Ingersoll ISO Opp to Mot for Partial SJ on CPA Claim.pdf

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/916152.pdf

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/state-of-washington-v.-arlene-s-flowers-inc.-and-barronelle-stutzman

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/state-of-washington-v.-arlene-s-flowers-inc.-and-barronelle-stutzman

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In the case of the florist, it may be of value to know the facts.   The following will provide some of those facts as well as the thinking that the various parties to this case had.

Here are some additional facts to the case, a case which I began following years ago when it first became news.  This case is but one step against religious freedom in America.  By steady compromises of this nature, our freedoms are being eroded, sometimes so gradually that people see no harm in it--like the proverbial frog in the pan of water on the stove that fails to jump out before it is cooked because each change in temperature is so gradual that it does not perceive the danger.

 

FACTS

The first judge in the case, presiding in Benton-Franklin County Superior Court, was Alexander Carl Ekstrom.  Ekstrom graduated from the University of Washington School of Law in 1997 as a J.D., having obtained his B.A. in History, cum laude, four years prior at the same university.  He has been married to his wife for 20 years and has three children (see photos here: http://alexforjudge.net/).  As is often the case with judges, he was first an attorney, including about ten years as a prosecuting attorney.

Ekstrom was re-elected this past November, running against a woman by the name of Alicia Marie Berry.  Before the election the following piece hit the news about her and her involvement with the Arlene's Flowers case: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article78985532.html.  According to the article, she was one of the attorneys helping to represent Arlene's Flowers, but "she said she withdrew from the Arlene’s case to run for election."

 

From my perspective, the judge likely had no ability to turn the case the other direction.  Judges must simply interpret the law, and Washington State, unfortunately, has some immoral laws.  Eastern Washington is the more conservative part of the state, and would have likely voted for Berry in place of Ekstrom had the case been clearly one of departure from the law on Ekstrom's part.  While I would have liked to see the decision go the other way, in Washington State, that may simply be unrealistic.  If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it has more chance at fairness, seeing as the Washington high court is simply defending state law.  Not all states would agree with it.

However, I also feel Arlene's was short-changed in terms of suitable representation.  I think a better lawyer could have framed the case with a more clearly religious argument, and the Constitution still protects religious liberty. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In the beginning, I felt that the issue was clear-cut, and the courts were correct.

In reading the material that I cited above, I have come to the conclusion that this is  not a clear-cut as I once thought and I need more information.  I can think of issues that do need a judicial determination, which have not been decided.

I am not convinced that Green is correct in his evaluation of the defense attorney.  But, that position is worthy of consideration.  I do think that there are issues that the defense could have explored, if they had existed.

I do think that the florist possibly could have conducted her business in a  manner in which she would have been allowed to refuse in this specific case.

 

IOW, today I have more questions than I had a week ago.  I am not ready, at this point in time to say that the court was wrong.  But, I have questions and issues that I would like to have had explored.

 

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

21 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I do think that the florist possibly could have conducted her business in a  manner in which she would have been allowed to refuse in this specific case.

You remind me of the situation where Daniel's three friends stood before the Statue on the Plain of Dura.  They could simply have bent to tie their shoes at an opportune moment.  Certainly, doing so would have kept them out of the fiery furnace.  But there are times when a Christian must stand tall for what is right, regardless of the human authority breathing out threatenings, even to death. 

I fully support the lady in her stand for conscience.  I also support the clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples on account of her conscience.  This is America.  Freedom of conscience is something many of our men in uniform have paid the ultimate price to preserve.  Only men less noble than they would work to undo this freedom.  I may not always agree with others' conscience--but I feel they have the right to follow it.  No one should be obligated to work against their conscience.  Doctors, for example, should not be forced to euthanize a patient who requests it in states where such is legal.  Pastors should not be forced to marry homosexuals; nor should they be hushed from teaching the Bible's perspective on the matter as if it were a "hate crime."

People have options.  If one individual will not consent to do something for them, citing conscience as the reason, there will be someone else happy to do it.  That is the privilege of the free market, in a diverse economy based on freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, you have built a straw man and presented me in a manner that I do not hold.  You should know better than that.

A company that provides printing  services may be allowed to refused to print specific material.  These companies attempt to protect themselves from anti-discrimination laws by publishing, for all to see, a range of materials that they will not print which extend beyond those classes of materials that are covered by anti discrimination law. 

It should be noted that twice I have faced a charge of discrimination for refusal to conduct the wedding of a couple.  Each time I have immediately had the charge dismissed due to the fact that I was able to demonstrate that my standards were based upon a wide range of conditions that were not covered by any anti-discrimination law.

E.G.  One of my standards was that I would not conduct a wedding in a bar/night club.

I happen to think that there was a potential for the business owner to have structured the refusal in a  manner that would have been upheld by the court and would not have been a bending to tie one's shoe.  Perhaps I am wrong as I do not have all of the facts.  But, your implication that I might be advocating bending to tie one's shoe is unjustified and beyond any kind of appropriate comparison.

Green, I have no problem with you believing that I am wrong.  You are quite capable of presenting such an argument that would be worthy of consideration.  But, to build the straw man that you have done is not such an argument.

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, the clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses is a totally different situation.

She was a government official who was obligated to uphold the standards of the government and to apply those standards to all citizens equally. 

If her religious beliefs prevented her from doing so, she should not have taken the positon, or she should have resigned at the point where she could no longer function in that position.

The public, which includes you and I, can not have the law applied to us on the basis of the whims of the government official who may not agree with our SDA beliefs.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, you have built a straw man and presented me in a manner that I do not hold.

I made no comment about your opinion or position.  I simply commented about what your statement brought to my mind.  I found your comment somewhat ambiguous.  If you disagreed with my remarks, then perhaps we do disagree on this.

[APL]

10 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

You're building straw men.  No one, that I know of, has made an example of refusing to feed gay people.  What was refused by the florist was the action of celebrating and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle of the gay couple.  Would Jesus have done this?  That is the important question.

Jesus' first miracle during His ministry was at a wedding of the sort honored by God.  Sodom was treated by God in an altogether different manner.

Really...do you believe Jesus would have provided flowers for the wedding of a homosexual couple?  If not, do you believe Jesus asks His followers to do any differently than He would?  If so, do you believe the Bible when it calls such homosexual acts an "abomination" (see Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 22:5; 23:18)?

I believe Jesus would have sent the homosexuals away with the words "Go, and sin no more."

Christ was a carpenter.  I don't think he would have refused to build any furniture for anyone.  Would he have refused to build a bed for homosexuals?   "Go, and sin no more" works only on those that see their need. 

Matthew 5:43-45 AKJV

43 You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

He provides flowers for everyone.

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, the clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses is a totally different situation.

She was a government official who was obligated to uphold the standards of the government and to apply those standards to all citizens equally. 

If her religious beliefs prevented her from doing so, she should not have taken the positon, or she should have resigned at the point where she could no longer function in that position.

The public, which includes you and I, can not have the law applied to us on the basis of the whims of the government official who may not agree with our SDA beliefs.

Apparently we do disagree.  I believe that the "government" is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, of which the clerk is one.  Furthermore, if you know that story, you should know she was elected to her position by the people (local government?), and it happened to be before the law was changed that countered her convictions.

We ought to obey God, rather than man.  That reminds me once again of certain Bible characters who refused to comply with the "government" requirements on account of conscience.  I like the case where Jonathan's life was spared by the people, against the king's word.  If more people would stand up and be counted, foolish commands, like Saul's, would not be carried out.

[debbym]

10 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

My position is simply that a person has a right to follow his or her conscience.  Even if you do not regard the action of serving alcohol as a matter of conscience, you can have no jurisdiction over others' consciences on the matter.  It is not a Christian who would pressure someone else to act contrary to his or her conscience, nor to impugn someone's convictions as a matter of "discrimination."

their are occupations i would not seek because of my convictions, i would not be bartender in a bar, i would not choose to be a pole dancer, i would not seek to be a military commander and lead others onto a battle field, outside of the system i would not start dealing drugs, or run a tobacco shop or work in one, i would not work in a liqueur store, i would not join a rock and roll band, i would not be a bouncer in a bar. i would not be employed in a house of prostitution in Nevada, or be the madame, or run an escort service. i would not choose to be in a job that required non essential to life services on Sabbath.  the conviction that i do not agree with living the homosexual lifestyle does not mean i will not provide public services to those so living.  if i was a personal home caregiver, i would not refuse a patient because they were living the gay lifestyle.  it in no way means that i like that they are doing if i serve them.  should doctors not accept gay patients because they don't like their lifestyle?  is it conscience or homophobia?  

[Green Cochoa]

6 minutes ago, debbym said:

their are occupations i would not seek because of my convictions, i would not be bartender in a bar, i would not choose to be a pole dancer, i would not seek to be a military commander and lead others onto a battle field, outside of the system i would not start dealing drugs, or run a tobacco shop or work in one, i would not work in a liqueur store, i would not join a rock and roll band, i would not be a bouncer in a bar. i would not be employed in a house of prostitution in Nevada, or be the madame, or run an escort service. i would not choose to be in a job that required non essential to life services on Sabbath.  the conviction that i do not agree with living the homosexual lifestyle does not mean i will not provide public services to those so living.  if i was a personal home caregiver, i would not refuse a patient because they were living the gay lifestyle.  it in no way means that i like that they are doing if i serve them.  should doctors not accept gay patients because they don't like their lifestyle?  is it conscience or homophobia?  

I was not particularly addressing any of that.  Certainly there are occupations I would never enter as well.  But consider the others.

I see no need for someone to refuse the occupation of medical doctor because some patients might be homosexuals or want an abortion.  I see no need for someone to refuse work in a restaurant because some clients might be homosexuals or request alcohol.  I see no need for someone to refuse teaching because some students might be homosexuals or atheists.  Conversely, I see no need for all doctors to be forced to do things that are legal but against their conscience, e.g. perform abortions.  I see no need for all waiters and waitresses to serve alcohol just because such is legal and many clients request it.  I see no need for all teachers to teach naturalistic evolution as fact in place of creation just because it is legal and the expected standard in government schools.

Regardless of where one works, whether in the public or private sector, each individual should have freedom of conscience.  Simple as that.  Ultimately, no one but God owns any of us.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, when the clerk was elected by the people, she took an oath to apply the law equally to all to which the law applied.

When she was no longer able to do that, even if due to a change in the law, she should have resigned her position.

As to clerks selling stuff that violates their convictions:  Yes, I personally know of rare situations where t he business attempted to accommodate such. But, in the majority of cases such accommodation is not possible.

As to the law:  U.S. law in such cases only requires reasonable accommodation.  No such absolute right exists under U.S. law.

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

Really...do you believe Jesus would have provided flowers for the wedding of a homosexual couple? 

I don't know, but based on His message to the world, I think it is most likely!! He may have given a gentle sermon/conversation, but turn them away from something as basic a bunch of flowers or baked them a cake, no, I don't think so. He was about accepting people, not turning them away. Does He turn us away in our sinfulness, no. You  are seeking perfection before allowing Christ to serve us. Not the way in works in my Bible...thankfully or I would never be saved!!

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

You're building straw men.  No one, that I know of, has made an example of refusing to feed gay people. 

Incorrect! Read again What i said. If you can refuse service for a wedding cake, food, or flowers, what keeps you from withholding other services? Oh, we can have a law that allows you to pick and choose which service you won't provide! Great! Ah, no. The law would have to spell it out and you would still have discrimination. So basicly your arguement is for discrimination based on your values. We either treat everyone the same or we don't. There is no in between. 

Look, this is all about one 'sin', as I have have already said and has been agreed to. We have no 'freedom of conscience' requests for anything else but on the issue of sexual orientation. We have all types of fears around this issue that just seep out of the woodwork.

Not going to change your mind and that is okay. I believe in equality for all and non-discrimination. I try not to treat anyone else differently than God treats me.

[APL]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

Incorrect! Read again What i said. If you can refuse service for a wedding cake, food, or flowers, what keeps you from withholding other services? Oh, we can have a law that allows you to pick and choose which service you won't provide! Great! Ah, no. The law would have to spell it out and you would still have discrimination. So basicly your arguement is for discrimination based on your values. We either treat everyone the same or we don't. There is no in between. 

Look, this is all about one 'sin', as I have have already said and has been agreed to. We have no 'freedom of conscience' requests for anything else but on the issue of sexual orientation. We have all types of fears around this issue that just seep out of the woodwork.

Not going to change your mind and that is okay. I believe in equality for all and non-discrimination. I try not to treat anyone else differently than God treats me.

Amen!

Matthew 25:33-46 AKJV

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink?

38 When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you?

39 Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you?

40 And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.

41 Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to you?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.