 |
| Barronelle Stutzman, Christian Intolerable that the courts won't tolerate her intolerance. |
Christians in the USA are again crying foul because a court has found against their intolerance and faith-based need to victimise, demonise and deny the rights to others that they demand for themselves.
The case involved a Washington State Christian florist who in 2013 refused to supply flowers for a same-sex marriage between Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, even though same-sex marriages were legal in the state. She had been prosecuted by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the Benton County Superior Court, and fined $1000 for discrimination. She then appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court.
Having lost in the Washington State SC, which ruled that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in the city of Richland had violated the state’s anti-discrimination law and a consumer protection measure, Stutzman took the case to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS had earlier ruled in favour of a similar case where a Colorado baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple. Stutzman had agreed that providing flowers for a same-sex marriage was no more an endorsement of same-sex marriages than supplying flowers for a Muslim or Atheist wedding was an endorsement of Islam or Atheism, so there was a clear admission of discrimination.
SCOTUS however, declined to rule on the legality of the Washington SC's ruling but suspended the lower court's judgment pending their reconsideration of the case in view of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, where SCOTUS found that there had been anti-religious bias by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in violation of the baker's religious rights. They asked the Washington SC to consider whether there had been any such discrimination in the Stutzman case.
Washington Supreme court has now ruled unanimously that there was no religious rancour on theirs or the Benton County Superior Court's handling of the case, therefore the limited finding by SCOTUS in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case did not apply, and their ruling stood.
In its initial whinge, the Alliance Defending Freedom (aka the Alliance Defending Christian Privilege and Bigotry) ADF Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said:
Barronelle serves all customers; she simply declines to celebrate or participate in sacred events that violate her deeply held beliefs. Despite that, the state of Washington has been openly hostile toward Barronelle’s religious beliefs about marriage, and now the Washington Supreme Court has given the state a pass. We look forward to taking Barronelle’s case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The opening clause is obviously false because Stutzman openly refused to serve Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, hence the case. What Washington State has been openly hostile to is the assumed right of Christians to ignore the law and to deny civil rights to others, using their faith as an excuse.
Of course, what Alliance Defending Freedom are really complaining about is the the law refused to endorse Christian bigotry and assumed privileged right deny the legal civil rights of people they disagrees with, and their assumed right to discriminate and victimise people of their choice.
What they are incensed about is that Washington State is intolerant of their Christian intolerance. To them, not tolerating their intolerance is intolerable. Tweet
You don't see your own intolerance. You throw this word around freely but you're the narrow viewed party here. I only came across this site haphazardly, I won't be back again. I hope.
ReplyDeleteBuh bye!
DeleteAlexm, can you please provide an example of how atheists are being intolerant. You do realise that it's NOT ok to tolerate someone else's bigotry don't you? It is no better than saying "I don't serve black people in my shop because it's against my religion and forcing me to do so is religious intolerance". That is exactly how some Christians sound.
Delete