Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

On Celebrating Gay Flowers; Or Not

Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:05
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

The Alliance Defending Freedom (arch-nemesis of the ACLU [Anti-Christian Liberals Union]) produced this video to tell the story of Arlene’s Flowers owner, Baronelle Stutsman. The short version is fairly simple:

Gay customer likes her floral arrangements, pays her money for nearly 10 years and develops a friendship with Mrs. Stutzman. Gay marriage is legalized in Washington state and gay customer naturally asks his favorite florist to provide the floral services. Mrs. Stutzman wrestles with the decision, but ultimately decides that she cannot take an active role in a marriage-union her faith dictates is sinful.

She declines gay customer’s request on these grounds. Gay customer is disappointed and goes home, content to find any of the other 16 florists in the immediate area. Gay customer’s friends and associates demand that he file suit for discrimination. Gay customer files suit, demanding that Mrs. Stutzman be forced to legitimize his gay union and provide her labor and active participation in the ceremony, against her will.

The Huffington Post is celebrating the moral superiority of three NBA teams to no longer patronize Trump-branded hotels because they disagree with his life choices and political positions:

The Milwaukee Bucks, Memphis Grizzlies and Dallas Mavericks will no longer stay at Trump-branded hotels in New York City and Chicago, ESPN reported. Another Eastern Conference team is under contract to stay at the Trump SoHo this season but will switch next year.

I personally believe that a business should serve people who are willing to pay for their services, which Mrs. Stutzman was perfectly willing to do for nearly 10 years. When asked to go above & beyond, she declined – as was her right. The customer was free to go elsewhere, but instead chose to force her submission & destruction.

I’ve long held that a crime is a crime, without regard to motivation; meaning that a crime is no more or less serious based on different motives. The only time motive becomes a factor in a criminal suit, is when the motive is exculpatory because exculpatory motives are a determinant of a crime having been committed in the first place (self-defense is an exculpatory motive for killing someone; i.e. legal justification).

If the gay flower incident is criminal discrimination, how are the tards at The Huffington Post and the NBA any less guilty of discrimination?

The whole thing is bullshit, I know. The left chooses which items are discriminatory and which aren’t. They demand complete, unwavering acquiescence, celebration, & embrace of the entire canon of progressive beliefs or they demand your destruction.

They forced us to pick sides and – SURPRISE! – I pick the side of individual liberty.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.