Alliance Defending Freedom Ambassadors
Barronelle has the constitutionally protected right to to express her artistic gift according to her faith and values. Why is one person given that right and not another?
I will say why I think. They pick target cases to bully – like Baronelle – to attempt to stop anyone else with Biblical convictions of Truth from doing the same thing. Plus, they are so convicted of their sin, (Romans chapter 1), even without us saying a word to them about their sin. They attack us. Jesus said we would be hated for His sake.
My nail salon has a sign that says they have the right to refuse service to anyone. I don’t get it.
YES, I would have an answer. She is constitutionally protected to live her deeply held faith/convictions through her business. She did NOT refuse to sell them flowers. She said she couldn’t do it for a same-sex “weddings,” -for which there is no such covenant in God’s eyes at all. What if the homosexual people owned the floral shop and they refused to prepare the flowers with Scriptures attached and a cross to show the participant’s obedience to Christ? If they would not do it – do you think there would be ANYTHING like this evil nightmare against Baronelle? – Of course there would not be. This is a very strong force of evil. Read Genesis chapter 6. Of course, God will forgive their sins if / when they come to Christ in repentance and ask His forgiveness.
Any customer, in free markets, has the right and opportunity to choose a different provider. The provider, on the other hand, has one product/company.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Enemies Within the Church Launch Team
Seeing as I received a summer of specialized training from the Christian legal firm that represented her, I’m pretty sure I have an answer – it’s the same basic defense they used in defending Jack Philips in the Supreme Court. The same argument that SCOTUS agreed with and then told Washington state to reconsider their persecution of Barronelle in light of. The same argument which – because the ruling in Jack’s case was favorable to him, it was *COWARDICE* in that it was narrowly tailored to his specific case and did not answer the broader question of the rights of others…like Barronelle…so the Washington Supreme court “reconsidered” her case, and decided against her because it didn’t apply.
That’s the thing with the conservative court that Trump gave us: though it is now a 5-4 conservative majority, it has been acting in a very cowardly manner: either rejecting legitimate cases based on “standing,” or when it does rule on a case touching on a critical issue of rights, the rulings are always super-narrowly tailored to that specific case – they deliberately avoid the broader question.
So far this “conservative court” is proving to be a spineless disappointment.
The exact & very same people, who tell us Big-tech are privately owned and run businesses have every right to run those businesses as they see fit and reject anyone they choose; are the very exact & same ones telling us a baker has to bake any cake or florist must arrange orders for any purpose, which conflicts them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wesleyan Resistance Private Group
Not being an attorney I’d defer to her attorney’s explanation for the ‘questioner’….in street language…..”your rights end where mine begin!”
There’s such a thing in chess and life as a stalemate..this is that. The real problem with your question is that you assume that one should checkmate (win).
Thanks for responding. It’s not meant to be a trick question. I would contend her rights *have* been violated and his have not.
Unless she is the only florist who can supply the flowers you need she is NOT violating your (the customer) rights! It’s her business, she could have lied and said she was too busy, or going to be on vacation when you were getting married! Instead she told the truth that she couldn’t support your wedding, due to her conscience!