The law is an ass

By on Feb 17, 2017

Meaning: Said of the application of the law that is contrary to common sense. Or: Said of the application of the law when it only applies to one group or persons RIGHTS and not another. As in this case where the RIGHT to BUY FLOWERS from an independent business (which is no right at all) applies but the independent business’ right to refuse to sell THEIR goods to someone and the independent business owner’s RIGHT to RELIGIOUS beliefs do not apply. In other words, non-existent rights trump the right to religious belief. Non-existent, man-made rights trump self-evident, God given rights. A few fools in black robes decide unnatural behavior is more important to be defended than an individuals belief in God. The irony here is so magnificent, for who is wearing these black robes but MEN, men who believe themselves wise but lo, these poor men should be very careful –

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 For it is written,  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”   Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

If you want to know one of the main contributing factors to Trump’s ability to garner 63 million votes it is because to those 63 million stories like this are simply INSANE – The gay guys are jackasses for not going down the street to another florist, the lawyer is a jackass for bringing the case,  the reporter is a jackass for her apparent glee and the judges are the biggest jackasses for believing they are so wise and as Mr. Bumble says, The Law is an ASS.- I think this last really sums it up.
Richland florist discriminated against gay couple by refusing service, state Supreme Court rules
Originally published February 16, 2017 By Lynn Thompson Seattle Times staff reporter
Following a news conference Thursday morning, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, center left behind podium, congratulates Michael Scott, who represented the couple pro bono along with his law firm. At Michael Scott’s left is ACLU Executive Director Kathleen Taylor. (Alan Berner / The Seattle Times)
Barronelle Stutzman, center, a Richland, Wash., florist who was fined for denying service to a gay couple in 2013, smiles as she is surrounded by supporters after a hearing before Washington’s Supreme Court, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2016, in Bellevue, Wash. Stutzman was sued for refusing to provide services for a same sex-wedding and says she was exercising her First Amendment rights, but justices questioned whether ruling in her favor would mean other businesses could turn away customers based on racial or other grounds.
Curt Freed, left, and Rob Ingersoll sued a Richland florist for refusing to provide services for their 2013 wedding because of religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the florist violated anti-discrimination law. (Elaine Thompson/AP)

Following a news conference Thursday morning, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, center left behind podium, congratulates Michael Scott, who represented the couple pro bono along with his law firm. The florist says she will appeal the ruling that she violated anti-discrimination law by refusing to provide flowers to a gay couple for their wedding to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Richland florist who refused to provide flowers to a gay couple for their wedding violated anti-discrimination law, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court ruled unanimously that Barronelle Stutzman discriminated against longtime customers Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed when she refused to do the flowers for their 2013 wedding because of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Instead, Stutzman suggested several other florists in the area who would help them.
“We’re thrilled that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. The court affirmed that we are on the right side of the law and the right side of history,” Ingersoll and Freed said in a statement.

Stutzman and her attorneys said they would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. They also held out hope that President Donald Trump would issue an executive order protecting religious freedom, which was a campaign pledge.

Stutzman called the ruling “terrifying when you think the government is coming in and telling you what to think and what to do.”

In its decision, the state’s highest court rejected Stutzman’s claims that since other florists in the area were willing to provide flowers, no harm resulted from her refusal.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud said, “We emphatically reject this argument. We agree with Ingersoll and Freed that ‘this case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases were about access to sandwiches.’ … 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 also rejected Stutzman’s claims that her floral arrangements were a form of artistic expression and so protected by the First Amendment. Citing the case of a New Mexico photographer who similarly refused to take pictures at a gay marriage, the court said, “while photography may be expressive, the operation of a photography business is not.”

In December 2012, soon after the state legalized gay marriage, Ingersoll and Freed began planning a large wedding. Stutzman, who had provided flowers to the couple numerous times over the years, refused, citing her religious belief that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

The couple went ahead with their wedding, but they had it at home with 11 guests and flowers from another florist, instead of the larger event they had envisioned.

The couple, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU) sued Stutzman under the state’s anti-discrimination and consumer-protection laws in what became a high-profile case that highlighted the clash between the right to be treated equally under the law and the free exercise of religion and speech.

A Benton County Superior Court judge last February ruled that Stutzman’s religious beliefs did not allow her to discriminate against the couple and that she must provide flowers for same-sex weddings, or stop doing weddings at all. The trial court also imposed a fine of $1,000 and legal fees of just $1.

Thursday’s state Supreme Court ruling upheld the lower court.

Ferguson on Thursday hailed the decision, saying, “It is a complete, unequivocal victory for equality in the state of Washington and sends a clear message around the country as well.”

Speaking with Ferguson at a news conference in Seattle, Michael Scott, the ACLU attorney for the same-sex couple, said the decision recognizes “human beings and their lives” while upholding the “core value of American law” regarding human dignity.

Scott said he would be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, citing a century of unbroken legal precedent. “It’s not groundbreaking law,” he said.
“If this case were about an interracial couple we wouldn’t be here today,” he added.

Scott said the fact that the state Supreme Court was unanimous carries extra weight.

“They’re sending a message that I think is loud and clear,” he said.

Ferguson, noting Stutzman’s attorneys had suffered “defeat after defeat,” said he was confident the decision would be upheld in the high court if it does hear the case.

He also said his office would closely scrutinize any executive order issued by Trump to undermine the decision.

Lambda Legal Defense, a national group protecting gay rights, also praised the court ruling.
“Businesses must not discriminate against LGBT people and religious motivation does not change that,” said Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal’s director of law and policy and co-author of the group’s friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Stutzman, said that it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review Thursday’s ruling.

Stutzman acted consistently with her faith, an Alliance news release said, but state justices “concluded that the government can force her — and, by extension, other Washingtonians — to create artistic expression and participate in events with which they disagree.”

In November, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers, during a special session at Bellevue College.

Attorneys for Stutzman argued that a floral arrangement is a form of speech deserving of protection and that government cannot compel Stutzman to create an arrangement for a gay couple against her religious beliefs.

Her attorneys argued that the Benton County Superior Court’s ruling was unlawful government coercion and that the creative expression of floral arrangement deserves the same protection as free speech.
Ferguson urged the court to uphold state anti-discrimination laws and not to create an exception for religious beliefs. He noted that many people once held strong religious beliefs against interracial marriage, but the courts struck down those laws as discriminatory.

It’s one of several lawsuits around the country — including some involving bakers — about whether businesses can refuse to provide services over causes they disagree with, or whether they must serve everyone equally.

A Colorado case involving a baker who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Lambda Legal. In 2014, the court declined to hear an appeal of the New Mexico case that went against a photographer who denied a same-sex couple service.