Alliance Defending Freedom continues to promote a false narrative regarding the discriminatory florist.
Tuesday, a money-grubber from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is titled: SHOCK: Disappointing news from the U.S. Supreme Court. Their “shock” is that the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington State.
ADF has been pimping Arlene’s Flowers’ owner, Barronelle Stutzman for years. According to ADF, Stutzman had a right to defy Washington’s nondiscrimination laws and refuse to sell flowers to be displayed at a same-sex wedding. Christian privilege abounds.
ADF’s rhetoric remains unchanged:
“There is nothing “peaceful” about bigotry. It is anathema to American culture and values.”
Washington floral artist Barronelle Stutzman has been standing for her freedom for roughly eight years. She’s made two trips to the Washington Supreme Court and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court twice.
During that time, she’s faced the possibility of losing her family business and her life savings. And she’s even received violent threats.
“Floral artist” my ass. Moreover, she has not been “standing for freedom.” If anything she has been standing for attention. Stutzman was never in jeopardy of losing either her business or life savings. The supposed “violent threats” are a conservative Christian staple and unlikely to have occurred.
Moreover, Stutzman could have settled this matter eight years ago simply by agreeing not to discriminate in the future. No fine would have been imposed. She might very well have so agreed were it not for the fact that ADF contacted her local lawyer and took over representation after Stutzman lost her case at the Washington Superior Court.
ADF has raised a ton of tax-deducted, tax-exempt money off of Stutzman. Taxpayers were saddles with massive court costs. All because the witch wanted some attention and ADF perceived her as a reliable donation magnet.
Get out your tissues:
Through it all, this sweet grandmother has remained steadfast in her faith—drawing strength from God and from people like you who have supported her and her stand for freedom.
The “sweet grandmother” is a bigot.
Here is the gratuitous “live their faith in the public square” bullshit:
There is nothing “peaceful” about bigotry. It is anathema to American culture and values. Furthermore a Klansman (they all claim that the Klan is a conservative Christian organization) could make the same ridiculous assertion.
“However, Stutzman acknowledged that selling flowers for an atheistic or Muslim wedding would not be tantamount to endorsing those systems of belief.”
Does anyone at ADF read this nonsense before emailing it out?
Standing against efforts to banish people of faith from the marketplace
Targeting a grandmother for punishment because of her religious convictions is not American. It is a symptom of a society that is increasingly rejecting our Constitution and the God-given freedoms it protects.
First of all, the bitch was not “targeted.” The people who were refused service were targeted. Secondly, no one has a religious duty to discriminate. Thirdly, no one forced Stutzman to buy this business. She knew that it came with certain legal obligations including laws banning discrimination.
Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees “free exercise” which is the right to believe whatever she wants. Behavior is a different matter.
Moreover, the issue is not about banishing religious people from the marketplace. Rather, it is about not causing LGBTQ people to suffer indignities in the marketplace.
At the lower courts, Stutzman said that selling the flowers constituted an endorsement of same-sex marriage. According to the Washington Supreme Court:
Returning to ADF’s BS:
The fact is that Barronelle serves everyone who comes through her doors—she always has. But the state is telling her that’s not enough. The government has demanded that she use her God-given talents to celebrate something in conflict with her faith.
“LGBTQ people deserve nondiscrimination protections in federal law.”
In other words, our money is good enough for Stutzman as long as she can approve of where, how and for what purpose the flowers she sells are displayed. She might serve Jews every day. However, what happens when she refuses service when a Jewish man is marrying a Christian woman?
Moreover, the law makes no exception based upon religious beliefs. Eventually, appealing further to potential donors:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case means that the Washington Supreme Court ruling against Barronelle will stand.
This is a victory for opponents of freedom … And you know if their continued efforts to deny your freedom go unchallenged, Barronelle will be just one of many victims.
Actually, this is a victory for proponents of freedom. Everyone should be able to participate in the marketplace free of discrimination. No one should suffer the indignity of being told “we don’t serve your kind here.”
Those who oppose your freedom are in it for the long haul. They are primed, ready, and well-funded. They think you should be forced to keep your faith at home—or at church. If you insist on living out your faith at work, they coulLGBTQ people deserve nondiscrimination protections in federal lawd very well do the same thing to you that they did to Barronelle—and are doing to others like her right now.
“They” think that discrimination is un-American. “They” think that the law applies to everyone equally. “They” think that engaging in discrimination is not “living out your faith at work.”
“They” also think that it is past time for the Equality Act to become law. LGBTQ people deserve nondiscrimination protections in federal law.
This is all very simple. ADF believes that there should be one set of laws for Christians and another set of laws for everyone else.