Image courtesy of Bob Brawdy/Tri-City Herald/AP
A florist in the state of Washington is being sued by both the ACLU and the state Attorney General because the owner would not sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding. This violates the state’s anti-discrimination law, which prohibits a public business from discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation.
The same would go for wedding photographers and videographers. Anybody in the wedding business who cannot, in good conscience, lend their services to same-sex couples due to their personal beliefs about homosexuality or same-sex marriage, will have to make a choice to either violate their conscience, or choose a different profession. Ah, but remember the tired old question supporters of same-sex marriage always raise: How will granting same-sex couples the right to marry affect you?! Here is just one more instance of how it affects others, and I’m sure it will not be the last.
UPDATE: As of February 16, 2017, Barronelle Stutzman lost her appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court by a 9-0 decision.
Thinking to Believe 
April 22, 2013 at 7:33 am
“How will granting same-sex couples the right to marry affect you?!”
If you are not in the wedding business, it won’t affect you. If you are in the wedding business, it won’t effect you, unless you want to discriminate illegally.
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 8:29 am
@NotAScientist
So you agree that it introduces a moral dilemma for some business owners which could lead to their legal prosecution if they follow their conscience. Whether you think that’s fair or not, it’s certainly a big deal/impact for those business owners whose livelihood depends on their work.
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 8:49 am
“So you agree that it introduces a moral dilemma for some business owners which could lead to their legal prosecution ”
Sure.
But there is also a moral dilemma for business owners who are racist when they might be legally prosecuted for refusing to serve members of the race they don’t like.
You (and the potential business owner) might not view discriminating against gay people as the same as discriminating against a race. But I do. And so does the law.
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 10:05 am
It’s a circular argument to say that it will only affect someone if they choose to discriminate illegally, when the point of the matter is that it is the legal changes that are causing this. This is what we have said all along: pro-gay legal changes will result in discrimination against those who have moral qualms against homosex and same-sex marriage.
Jason
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 10:09 am
I don’t buy the argument that ‘If I’m not allowed to discriminate, I’m being discriminated against!’.
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 10:13 am
And I don’t buy the argument that it is unjust discrimination (particularly when it comes to same-sex marriage). That is the question at hand, after all. Those on my side of the ledger argue that same-sex couples no more qualify for marriage than men qualify for hysterectomies. To limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, then, is not discrimination.
Jason
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 10:49 am
“And I don’t buy the argument that it is unjust discrimination”
Nor does anyone who discriminates unjustly. That’s a red herring. If you thought it was unjust you wouldn’t do it.
That doesn’t mean we, as a country, shouldn’t protect people from being discriminated against. And ‘not being allowed to discriminate’, unfortunately for you, doesn’t count.
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 11:11 am
NotAScientist,
It’s true that most people who discriminate unjustly do not think they are doing so unjustly, but that’s besides the point. The question is whether or not we are truly discriminating unjustly or not. And that is why we offer arguments in behalf of our position, demonstrating that our discrimination is not unjust. We aren’t merely asserting that it isn’t.
The fact of the matter is that almost everyone will draw a line somewhere when it comes to marriage, and who qualifies for it. Perhaps that line is polygamy, polygamory (in which 3 or more people are all married to each other), or incestuous marriage. Almost everyone would say a mother cannot marry her daughter. But those who disagree, and think this is unjust discrimination, could respond to the rest of us sane individuals using your same line: “Nor does anyone who discriminates unjustly. That’s a red herring. If you thought it was unjust you wouldn’t do it. That doesn’t mean we, as a country, shouldn’t protect people from being discriminated against. And ‘not being allowed to discriminate’, unfortunately for you, doesn’t count.”
Jason
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 11:20 am
“The fact of the matter is that almost everyone will draw a line somewhere when it comes to marriage, and who qualifies for it.”
Sure. But there’s no good reason to draw it on gay marriage. Especially since you can’t demonstrate that gay marriage, or homosexuality, in and of itself, causes harm. Your other examples can be shown to cause harm.
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 2:31 pm
OMG: I have returned!
1st of all, in my humble opinion, there is no such thing as same sex couples as all couples are hetero-couples. I have said this many times before gender orientation is in the brain not in the anatomy.
2ndly, businesses operate for the public and cannot claim that their sunshine can only to shine on their kind.
3rdly, I hope the business is penalized according to the law and either agrees to cease discrimination or have their license revoked.
4thly, if a Jeweler or videographer or photographer does not want the sale they can easily say what many businesses say when they have a full agenda or cannot or do not want the work: sold out, all booked up, cannot supply;any excuse except, sorry I don’t like Muslims or I have a moral conscience and you do not.
5thly, The Flower shop deserves to be closed if they are closed minded.
6thly, Marriage was made for humans, not humans for marriage therefore humans are Lords of marriage.(Mk 2:23-28 is the perfect parable)
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 3:24 pm
…A very difficult situation. First of all, i’ll say that I am a committed Christian that believes that homosex is against God’s will for humanity. Secondly, let me also add that I was involved in homosexual relationships until delivered by the power of the Holy Ghost (yes, it really can happen!).
I feel that our honest moral objections to this behavior can only take us so far. If I own a grocery store, can I refuse to sell food to the catering company that will prepare the food for a gay wedding? If I own a clothing store, can I refuse to sell shoes to a woman if I know that they will be worn by the bridesmaids at her lesbian wedding? By doing so, I don’t believe I would lose any spiritual integrity before God, as it is not an endorsement of the lifestyle. I’m simply continuing to live and work as I normally do as a vendor of products and/or services.
However, the line should be drawn to exclude cases when my services DO portray me as sanctioning homosexual behavior. For example, if I am an evangelical preacher who believes that such behavior is aberrant, I should not perform a homosexual marriage ceremony. (Though, why a homosexual couple would want to be joined in matrimony by someone who condemned their lifestyle is beyond me…)
It might be a better idea to openly show our worship of the God of heaven in our stores and websites. If homosexuals still want our products or services in spite of our clear and unabashed praise to the Lord Jesus Christ, vend to them. If they choose to take their business elsewhere, then that’s ok too. If they ask what’s our opinion on gay marriage, tell them; don’t be ashamed! In my humble opinion, I say again that we wouldn’t lose our moral standing with God by vending products/services to this population as long as openly acknowledge our heavenly Father in all things we do.
I welcome any responses/feedback 🙂
LikeLike
April 22, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Jeremy Brown:
I pity your lifestyle now that includes the supernatural spin that hetero-couples go against your god myth’s will for humanity; that is one of the most ludicrous statements going, radical Islam notwithstanding.
If you were delivered from homosexual relations then you were delivered from a lifestyle choice; a practicing member of the LGBT Community is not based on lifestyle choice but a gestation effect from which no holy spirit can deliver you as it is ingrained into humanity of your genesis. There is no more deliverance for the LGBT than there is for a Leopard from its spots.
The best they can hope for and that is now occurring is that the world at large will accept them as a normal part of the human race. Unfortunately, to a large extent it is the religious world that most often alienates that Community and it is the religious world that continuous to ostracize them using their God myth and religious insanity to justify stoning them as they do prostitutes as in Jesus’ time, as in our time.
One of the most atrocious, disgusting and shameful events in this modern society is Police Officers dressing their women Police Officers like Whores and parade them down Harlot Avenue in order to arrest them and the men they make every attempt to attract, just so they can arrest them, mock them, laugh at them, lock them up, take them to court, make them pay in fines and/or jail time and think they are doing the world a wonderful service-Blind Guides they are.
Now talk to me about the hypocrites in our society that condemn pimps and prostitutes for living off the avails of prostitution while the police, the courts and the justice system itself, fill their coffers off the avails of prostitution. Jesus would say “Woe to you Hypocrites” and recite the 8 fold indictment of Matt 23 again and again.
Having said that however, I do applaud your reasoning stance about why businesses should cater to those they are disenchanted with but your reasoning has more to do with righteous thinking than with the Supernatural, Christianity, religion or Jesus.
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 5:11 am
I personally would prefer it that we are allowed to discriminate (whether that be against blacks/whites/hispanics/gays/straight etc)
Since this is a private company (rather than public) I really don’t see what the issue is with not catering for the homosexual couple. Would they have preferred a job half done? I mean thats the conclusion isn’t it? If I HAD to wed a homosexual couple, I’d literally preach on verses decrying homosexuals and endorsing man/woman relationships to annoy the gay couple. If I had to supply a service, I’d do it with a “can’t be bothered” attitude as I wouldn’t care for the service. However, I’d rather not do it at all and save everyone the heartache!
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 8:07 am
Let’s also be clear that, from the sounds of it, the flowers/service was not denied simply because of the sexual orientation of the customer, but because of the type of event it was for. A straight person (family member or friend, let’s say) may as well have been ordering the flowers for the wedding with the same result.
The difference is legally and philosophically significant.
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 9:13 am
David P.
You are grasping at straws again trying to suggest it was not denied because of sexual orientation but because of the sexual orientation event.
The difference is shallow, stupidly obtuse and the kind of gleeful humour only a clerical spoon fed fool would delight in, to get a feeble laugh from friends within his circle of religious insanity.
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 9:16 am
BAN THE BOIKA BULLETIN:
Archaeology:
After having dug to a depth of 10 feet last year, French scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 200 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 150 years ago.
Not to be outdone by the French: in the weeks that followed, American archaeologists dug to a depth of 20 feet before finding traces of copper wire. Shortly afterwards, they published an article in the New York Times saying : “American archaeologists, having found traces of 250-year-old copper wire, have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network 50 years earlier than the French.”
A few weeks later, ‘The Christian Science Monitor’ not to be out done by secular scientists reported the following: “After digging down to a depth of 33 feet in the Skipton area of North Yorkshire in 2012, Charlie Hardcastle, a self-taught local amateur archaeologist and supernaturalism advocate, reported that he had found absolutely bugger all. Charlie has therefore concluded that 250 years ago, Religion had already gone wireless.”
Just makes you bloody proud to be a Christian doesn’t it?
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 9:22 am
BAN THE BOIKA BUFFOONERY:
A Muslim bloke I work with was bragging he had the entire Koran on DVD. Being interested, I asked him to burn me a copy. Well, that’s when it all kicked off!
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 2:00 pm
NotAScientists
“Sure. But there’s no good reason to draw it on gay marriage. Especially since you can’t demonstrate that gay marriage, or homosexuality, in and of itself, causes harm. Your other examples can be shown to cause harm.”
You missed the point. Why does your line about not discriminating apply to same-sex marriage, but not to mother-daugther marriage? What’s the difference? Anybody can claim discrimination.
As for your statement, I disagree. There is a good reason to draw the line at same-sex marriage. Marriage is not a human or government invention, but a pre-political, pre-religious natural institution based in human nature. Men and women are sexually incomplete. Our reproductive organs only function when they are united to a person of the opposite sex. The natural result of this bodily union is children, and those children are cared for by the parents who created them. That’s what marriage is all about. And that’s why same-sex couples do not qualify for marriage. It has nothing to do with discrimination or even moral disapproval of homosex. It’s just that by nature, a same-sex union is not of the marital sort. We may choose to value same-sex unions, but they are not the same kind of union as a marital union, and calling them marriages does nothing to change that fact, anymore than calling my relationship with my mother a “marriage.” It only brings confusion.
As for harm, I don’t see why we have to show that same-sex marriage would harm society. All we have to show is that marriage has a particular meaning defined by our biology and human nature, and that same-sex relationships cannot possibly fulfill the same role. But that aside, I do think same-sex marriage will bring social harm, particularly for children. When you enshrine into law the notion that marriage has nothing to do with children, but everything to do with approving adults’ emotional attachments, you will sever the connection between marriage and children in the minds of society. Of course people will still have kids, but their unions will be less permanent, and the effects of broken homes on children is well-documented.
Jason
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Leo, please stick to the topic. I don’t want this string being cluttered with irrelevant comments.
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Jeremy, I would be interested in talking with you about your experience. Email me at jasondulle[at]yahoo.com, if you don’t mind talking about it.
Jason
LikeLike
April 23, 2013 at 11:20 pm
Jason, I apologize for injecting irrelevant humour into the thread; please delete the two commentaries that offended you. You are right, I was wrong to do that.
LikeLike
April 24, 2013 at 1:31 am
Leo, thank you for the apology. Just so you know, I was not offended by the comments. I just want to keep the comments on topic. We’re all better served if all of us keep our comments on topic and interact with the specific points being made, rather than going off on tangents or changing the subject.
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 5:14 pm
By Maya Shwayder | June 20 2013 1:26 PM
Exodus International, one of the U.S.’s foremost “gay conversion therapy” groups, publicly announced Thursday it is closing up shop and quitting the gay conversion business, calling the practice “harmful.”
In an apology letter on the Exodus website, group leader Alan Chambers publicly apologized to the gay community, writing, “Our ministry has been public and therefore an acknowledgement of wrong must also be public.”
“Many LBGT adults see major religious institutions as unfriendly toward them,” the study’s authors wrote. “[A]bout three-in-ten LGBT adults (29 percent) say they personally have been made to feel unwelcome in a church or religious organization.”
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 5:17 pm
link?
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm
http://www.ibtimes.com/exodus-international-former-gay-conversion-therapy-group-apologizes-gay-community-closes-shop
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 5:35 pm
Jason this breaking news is all over the Internet..Google “Exodus International”
Another link:
http://www.fortwayne.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130620/NEWS/320123820/1007/TOPNEWS
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Yes, I googled it while I was waiting for your link. I haven’t had time to read the details, but from what I have read I am thoroughly shocked.
Jason
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Jason:
I think the realization is finally setting in that sexual orientation is in the brain and is as natural in that realm, albeit out of normal sync, I grant you that. However we must fully understand that anomalies that occur in nature while not necessarily the norm for you and me perhaps, is quite normal for those who carry the anomalies.
I often see the Grunge Crowd walking around with in their “body armour dress” piercings in almost every part of the body, ears, nose, eyelids, inside through the tongue on parts visible and invisible and tattoos that would make Cain’s Mark seem timid and shake my head in wonder, green hair, purple hair, rainbow hair and while I might not hire them in my business they’re working almost everywhere these days so obviously times are changing and old attitudes disappear and new ones emerge.
And that is the way of the world that we have to deal without discrimination.
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 11:46 pm
There is not sufficient data to conclude that homosexual desires are biologically determined, and good reason to believe that they cannot be wholly biologically determined. Be that as it may, it wouldn’t matter one iota to the moral question if one day it was determined that same-sex desire is wholly biologically determined. The issue is not the cause or origin of the desire, but the morality of homosex. In the same way that a biological basis for the impulse to murder would never justify someone acting on their natural impulse to murder someone, the fact that someone’s sexual desires are biologically determined has nothing to do with the question of whether those desires are good or bad, or whether acting on those desires is good or bad. It’s morally irrelevant.
Jason
LikeLike
June 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Jason: WTF? Are you waiting for data to conclude that homosexual desires are biologically determined? IT Only takes common sense not more data; we are swamped with data already. That’s why the weird Gay Conversion Schools are closing!
Now Jason, you say that the issue is the morality of “homosex”, your term.
First of all, you must give up the myopic view that two, “apparent” sexual sameness activity constitutes “homosex”. As mentioned in my previous post, “apparent” sex is not sufficient enough to make that distinction because sexual orientation is in the brain and not in the sexual genitalia. I cannot for the life of me understand why you cannot(or will not) grasp that simple fact.
Now you are saying, that even if the anomalies are biologically determined that does not determine whether those desires are good or bad. But that is just where you are wrong and stuck in a blind rut from whence you cannot seem to climb out of to see reality.
If the desires are biologically determined then the good/bad question is only supported by the culture upon which it falls to make that assessment; meaning, that morality is a question of geography/culture/religion and from where I sit, acts predicated upon biological function is perfectly moral with respect to sexual orientation and instinctual drives regardless of religion and cultural biases
I am not talking about murder and killings, the worse possible outcome to condemn an act, which you love to use along with other weird comparisons; but your comparisons are meaningless to the question and only obfuscate the issue by bringing in unrelated atrocities of which none are useful to the debate and only play on emotional senses for spin sensationalism like mag rag National Inquirer.
If you can, give me any scriptural quote by Jesus that condemns as immoral the acts of natural phenomena, just one single quote that you think supports your idea that same “apparent” sexual activity is immoral. Tell me one. I bet you cannot tell me one thing that Jesus ever said or parabled about or illustrated or touched on, that supports your fallacy of morality about sexual orientation. NOT ONE.
If you cannot show me anything that Jesus said about the matter that supports you them I submit your sense of morality is invalid.
I don’t care about the Old Testament; Jesus even said that was wrong and out of kilter and I don’t care about Paul’s philosophy, whatsoever.
Jesus, the one you claim your Christianity is based on, tell me what HE said about the matter and I will surely listen to that man!
Thanks
Leo
LikeLike
June 21, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Yes, I am Leo, because there is not sufficient data to prove it. Aren’t we supposed to base our conclusions on the data?
Personally, I think there is a biological component to same-sex attraction that predisposes people toward same-sex attraction, but that alone is not enough to cause someone to have same-sex attractions. it must be coupled with environmental/social factors. We already have enough data to conclude that biology cannot be the whole stories. There are plenty of identical twin studies in which only ~1/2 are both homosexual. In fact, fraternal twins have higher rates of “double gay” than identical twins. These statistics make no sense if same-sex attraction is just biological. At this point in the debate we know that social-environmental factors are a cause, and we suspect that biology plays some role.
You need to distinguish between desires and behavior. “Homosex” properly describes behavior, regardless of desires. If two people of the same sex are engaging in sex, that is homosex. And that term is not my own. Robert Gagnon is who I got it from. And I adopted it because it is more descriptive than homosexuality. That term is ambiguous as to whether it refers to same-sex attractions or same-sex activity. So I use “homosex” to refer to the behavior, and “same-sex attraction” to refer to the attraction. But I fully realize that one’s natural sexual preference may not be for the same sex, and yet they can still engage in same-sex behavior.
So you dispute my claim that biology has nothing to do with morality? I’m shocked…sort of. This is so basic. It’s the genetic fallacy to say that X is either good or bad depending on its origin. And my murder comparison is not weird. It’s quite relevant. Given your principle, that if X is biologically determined (or based), then we should not condemn X, then any X that is biologically determined cannot be condemned as immoral. So I ask you again, if a murder gene was discovered, would you say that murder should no longer be condemned? If not (and I hope not), then you need to abandon your principle (which you should do anyway since it commits a logical fallacy).
A quote by Jesus condemning a natural phenomenon? What? First of all, define a “natural phenomenon.” I suspect you mean “that which comes naturally to us.” And if so, Jesus condemned all sorts of things that come naturally to us! Most men naturally want to have sex with more than just one woman. We naturally get angry, and some people naturally even have desires to murder. Some people naturally desire to have sex with children. Morality is all about restraining ourselves from doing what comes naturally. Sex is no different.
As for your demand for a statement of Jesus alone, it exhibits your low Christology and unchristian view of Scripture, and I won’t submit to it. But let me ask you, are you honestly arguing that if Jesus did not condemn X, then X must be moral? Surely you can see how flawed that reasoning is.
Jason
LikeLike
June 21, 2013 at 5:30 pm
What I am suggesting Jason, about the Jesus request is, if Jesus did not think it was important enough to comment on that is the point. But he certainly did not abandon the woman who the regular crowd were willing to stone for similar sexual reasons as prescribed by their religious morals, so called.
Now if he did not accept that the regular penalties for adultery or promiscuity for heterosexual activity were worthy of death because of the perceived immorality of the society why would you presume he was making a point only about peculiar heterosexual behaviour and not about EVERY sexual behaviour?
My gut feeling is that he was referring to every perceived sexual impropriety by Society in general and so with that I allow myself full freedom not to condemn people or their behaviour based on my perception alone, certainly not on perception from stoneage ideas of what is right and wrong from a society that sacrificed animals to a supernatural myth.
LikeLike
June 21, 2013 at 5:58 pm
You ignored the majority of what I said.
Jesus didn’t think it was important to talk about pedophilia either. Does that mean he thought it was right? Clearly your principle that whatever Jesus did not address must not be important or must not be immoral is flawed. Besides, Jesus address the question of sexual ethics when he pointed back to God’s idea in one man and one woman for life. That makes no room for homosex.
As for the story of the woman caught in adultery, there is virtually unanimous agreement among textual scholars that the pericope was not original to John’s gospel. But that’s beside the point. Jesus had come to initiate a new covenant that was unlike the Mosaic Covenant, so of course there would be differences. But on Christian theology, based on Jesus’ own words, He is the same God who gave Moses the Law.
Jason
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 10:00 am
POINT 1.
Jesus did address pedophilia from where I sit.
This scripture in Matthew is pretty inclusive of harm done to a child and assuredly Jesus’ generality of injuring the purity of child encompasses pedophilia
Matt 18:
2 And He called a little child to Himself and put him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Truly I say to you, unless you repent (change, turn about) and become like little children [trusting, lowly, loving, forgiving], you can never enter the kingdom of heaven [at all].
4 Whoever will humble himself therefore and become like this little child [trusting, lowly, loving, forgiving] is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever receives and accepts and welcomes one little child like this for My sake and in My name receives and accepts and welcomes Me.
6 But whoever causes harm to one of these little ones who believe in and acknowledge and cleave to Me to stumble and sin [that is, who entices him or hinders him in right conduct or thought], it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world for such temptations to sin and influences to do wrong! It is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the person on whose account or by whom the temptation comes!
POINT 2.
Jesus idea of when a man leaves mother and father and clings to a woman, that is true marriage; no documentation and no need for public acceptance more than the obvious but Jesus was addressing the topic of Divorce in the context of societal culture and that surely did not include man/man, woman/woman. You would like to read “homosex” into it but it had nothing to do with it at all.
POINT 3.
Textual scholars are in agreement on supernaturalism too but though they all agree, they are all wrong. What’s more, whether or not it was original to John’s Gospel; I agree with your comment: “that’s beside the point”.
POINT 4.
Jesus is not the God who gave Moses the Law. I know the general reference is to the Ten Commandments but I do not agree that were even Commandments and certainly not from any supernatural god on Mt Sinai.
Moses did his own research into the top reasons that people in that time lost their lives by unnatural ways. The top reasons Moses came up with from his research stats were listed in what I prefer to call the Ten Observations. These being the top ten reasons that people came to untimely and unnatural deaths.
The first four Observations were based solely on blasphemy against religious dogma, the fifth against parental respect and last five were crimes against one’s neighbour.
Moses, presenting his Ten Observations merely indicated that they were the current Top Ten Reasons you could lose your life so heed the Observations, Heed the research, as still today researchers come with reasons to lessen or increase based on the stats on chances of death by what you eat, drink and general lifestyle habits for the good of your health and life.
Leo
LikeLike
July 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Gay rights supporters crowded parade routes in San Francisco, New York and other major U.S. cities to celebrate what once was unimaginable — two Supreme Court victories on same-sex marriage.
The high court gave celebrants one more reason to cheer Sunday when Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected a last-ditch effort by opponents to stop gay marriages in California.
Among the thousands at San Francisco’s event, now in its 43rd year, were scores of teenage girls, opposite-sex couples and families with children.
http://news.yahoo.com/court-wins-draw-big-crowds-gay-pride-parades-002804140.html
LikeLike
July 25, 2013 at 11:59 am
Knutr Bedwyr said:
If I wanted to make a video showing the absurdity of the position of those that are against gay marriage, I wouldn’t change a thing.
People who support gay rights should promote the heck out of it.
People who do not support Gay Rights should do the same thing; regardless of your position, Intentional or not, this video is priceless.
LikeLike
August 27, 2013 at 11:09 am
[…] Elane Huguenin, violated the law by refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. This has happened before. What’s new in this case is the rationale of the court. Justice Richard C. Bosson, in his […]
LikeLike
November 8, 2013 at 2:06 pm
[…] recent days, I’ve reported on a florist who was sued for not providing flowers for a same-sex wedding, a baker who was sued for not providing a cake for […]
LikeLike