Florist discriminated against gay couple, Washington state Supreme Court rules

[rlvaughn]

State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers

We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding-constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD. We also hold that the WLAD may be enforced against Stutzman because it does not infringe any constitutional protection.

 

[Baptist Brother]

There's a florist who knows what it's like to be raped and sodomized.

 

[rlvaughn]

“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.” -- Barronelle Stutzman

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has doggedly pursue the case -- not just to define the law, but to egregiously punish Stutzman as well. The justices ruled that Stutzman violated Washington Law Against Discrimination. If so, WLAD is poorly written and should be found unconstitutional by our Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[Yeshua1]

There's a florist who knows what it's like to be raped and sodomized.

Just wonder if what would have been he ruling if their were Muslim?