 |
| Sorry Ms. Stutzman. You do not have a religious right to discriminate |
As the news of today's ruling against Barronelle Stutzman (the florist who a Washington state court told that she does not have a right to discriminate against a gay couple) travels, the usual cast of characters screaming about "religious freedom" and the right to discriminate against lgbts are sounding their horns:
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins:
After this morning's decision, (Baronelle Stutzman) was stunned. "I'm not asking for anything that our Constitution hasn't promised me and every other American: the right to create freely, and to live out my faith without fear of government punishment or interference." Americans like Barronelle were told repeatedly that redefining marriage wouldn't impact their lives. Now, two years into this social experiment forced on the country by the courts, families are being driven from their businesses -- and today, their homes -- for wanting the same tolerance the Left preaches. Barronelle's attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom's (ADF) Kristen Waggoner, was blown away by the injustice.
"In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist," she said. "Our nation has a long history of protecting the right to dissent, but simply because Barronelle disagrees with the state about marriage, the government and ACLU have put at risk everything she owns... It's no wonder that so many people are rightly calling on President Trump to sign an executive order to protect our religious freedom to prevent the federal government from persecuting Christians the way rogue state actors in states like Washington are doing. Because that freedom is clearly at risk for Barronelle and so many other Americans, and because no executive order can fix all of the threats to that freedom, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case and reverse this grave injustice."
Ken Pazton, Texas Attorney General:
"The First Amendment guarantees the liberty to speak freely, and the fundamental right to disagree. The government cannot force individuals to create art against their conscience and deeply held religious beliefs. Today's display of intolerance by the Washington State Supreme Court both defies the Constitution and seeks to outlaw the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Compelling individuals to speak messages against their sincerely held beliefs is un-American and unconstitutional."
You know how I feel about it. This entire "religious liberty" argument is a bogus piece of nonsense perpetrated by phony moral groups and fed to gullible individuals - both parties being too stubborn to admit the fact that they lost fair and square against marriage equality in our court of laws. This argument is not just about florists. Just where do you draw the line? Let's say that today, florists and bakers are given the right to refuse potential lgbt customers. How do we know that it won't be restaurants, hospitals or apartment complexes tomorrow?
