Wednesday, May 30, 2018

ADF's fraudulent money-beg

Barronelle Stutzman's fate will be determined by a case already before the Supreme Court — Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado. Continuing to raise money off of Stutzman is illegitimate.
Tuesday, Zack Ford covered the video. Wednesday we have the email from Alliance Defending Freedom (an anti-LGBT hate group) asking for money. The email is titled: Have you heard this gentle woman’s story? They are referring to Barronelle Stutzman. Stutzman is the Washington State florist who claimed to have a vested interest in where and how the flowers she sells are used. This led Stutzman to refuse to sell flowers to a same-sex couple in defiance of state law.

Bigots are not gentle women. Barronelle Stutzman is a bigot. ADF wants to characterize Stutzman as a kindly grandmother. From my perspective, the old hag is just an anti-gay bigot who wanted some attention at the expense of a gay couple. Yet, according to ADF:
Last year, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state can force Barronelle to create custom floral arrangements to celebrate same-sex ceremonies.

The court got it wrong. For five years, the state and the ACLU have pooled their vast resources for a coordinated legal assault on Barronelle. They are determined to crush her for standing up for religious freedom.
Stutzman is not a victim. The gay couple were victimized by Stutzman's unlawful discrimination. Washington's nondiscrimination law is clear and unambiguous. Based on the pleadings, I believe that Stutzman knew full well that she was defying the law.

Shortly after Washington effected marriage equality, ADF was busy at work, working though local clergy, trolling for prospective victims. Again, based on the pleadings, it appears that Stutzman was eager to become a Christian warrior.

Moreover, the state gave Stutzman an opportunity to settle this matter with a very small fine ($2,000). Stutzman refused. Ms. Stutzman is personally responsible for everything that has happened in this case. The state is simply enforcing a valid law.

ADF continues:
But ADF promised Barronelle that we would defend her all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and that’s what we have done.
Stutzman's case is not before the Supreme Court. The Court has not agreed to hear the case.
There is no other option. Barronelle must be defended because freedom for all of us is at risk.
There is an option: Stop this discriminatory activity. Nowhere in the Constitution is there the freedom to discriminate in violation of local law. That's not freedom. That is the tyranny of the majority over a minority. The case law is clear. The Supreme Court has ruled in both Employment Division v. Smith (1990) and Reynolds v. United States (1878). In Smith Justice Scalia wrote that there are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws. In Reynolds, the Court ruled that, while the state cannot regulate belief, it can regulate conduct.
Barronelle was targeted because of her beliefs.
Stutzman was not “targeted,” She refused to serve a gay couple. She was eager to defy the law. Stutzman's beliefs are irrelevant. It is ADF that is arguing that Stutzman's beliefs have some bearing. What ADF is looking to achieve is Christian privilege. One set of laws for Christians and another set of laws for everyone else.
You see, Barronelle had a longtime friend and customer named Rob. Barronelle and Rob always had a warm and cordial friendship. …
She discriminated against a friend and customer. Brilliant.
But while Barronelle loved working with Rob, she couldn’t craft custom floral art to celebrate his same-sex marriage. …
No one asked this woman to celebrate anything. They are using the word celebrate as a religious term. She couldn't? She could have and should have. Does she sell flowers to couples with a divorce or two behind them? How about the woman buying flowers for her marriage when she is obviously pregnant? Stutzman likely serves all manner of people whose marriage is “prohibited.” She doesn't inquire because it is none of her business. Her business is the exchange of flowers for money.

The gay was special because it was timely (after same-sex marriage came to Washington but before Obergefell). Ms. Stutzman's decision was political, not religious.
You probably know her story. Barronelle is a Christian floral designer — and a grandmother — who lives in Richland, Washington. This kind and loving soul is the last person you would ever expect to be at the center of a legal firestorm.
Bigots are not “kind and loving.” Stutzman put herself at the center of a legal controversy and then made decisions to sustain the controversy. Christian? In America that is not supposed to matter.
“Does anyone really believe that a government that gives itself the power to force people to believe (and not believe) things … will only use that power to bend one small-town florist to its will — and then leave everyone else alone?”
Christians are not supposed to lie! ADF knows perfectly well that belief and conduct are two different things. This awful woman is free to believe in the sanctity of kosher hot dogs. She is not free to discriminate against people who do not share her beliefs. A religious duty is not a valid excuse to violate the law. That has been precedent for 140 years.

From there we get the obligatory demonization of the ACLU, repeated requests for money and more “kindly grandmother” bullshit. This all culminates with:
We’ve promised to defend Barronelle all the way to the United States Supreme Court if that’s what it takes to protect her religious freedom. And that’s where the case stands today as we wait to learn if the Court will accept her appeal.

Please help today.
The intended inference is that ADF needs money to continue to represent Stutzman. Alliance Defending Freedom is not only a rabid hate group. They are a dishonest rabid hate group.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.