http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/christian-florist-who-turned-away-same-sex-couple-broke-anti-discrimination-laws-washington-court-says.html

Published February 17, 2017 FoxNews.com

A Washington state florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding in 2013 broke the state’s antidiscrimination law, the state’s Supreme Court ruled.

Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in the town of Richland, said she was exercising her First Amendment rights. Her lawyers promised that they would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

Stutzman had previously sold the couple flowers and knew they were gay. However, Stutzman told them that she couldn't provide flowers for their wedding because same-sex marriage was incompatible with her Christian beliefs.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the couple sued her, saying she broke state anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws, and the lower court agreed. The state's nine high court justices upheld that verdict.

Michael Scott, a Seattle attorney who worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed — the couple denied the flowers — had previously told justices he didn't believe Stutzman's floral creations constituted speech. By providing flowers for a same-sex marriage, he argued, "she's not endorsing same-sex marriage. She's selling what she sells."

Ferguson had said the state's argument rested on longstanding principle, and uprooting it would weaken antidiscrimination law.

After the arguments in the Supreme Court case last November, at a packed theater at Bellevue College, a large crowd of Stutzman's supporters greeted her outside, chanting her name and waving signs with pictures of roses that said "Justice For Barronelle."

In a February ruling, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom found that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers because of sexual orientation violated Washington's anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. She has been fined $1,000, plus $1 in court costs and fees.

Stutzman entered the florist business 30 years ago, when her mother bought a flower shop and she started as a delivery person.

I pray for the couple. God's (Christian) rule on matter trumps Washington state.

Throw that motherfucker in jail.

she was paid to server "all public customers", therefore if she fails there is about $0.50 in question - the pay for time it takes to serve a customer, or perhaps $8 or so depending on how you calculate non-busy hours. The smalls.

However there is no law saying she MUST do anything the employer instructs her to, under the Constitution. Infact even if orders, military and police must use their own conscience (assuming they have one) before acting else they can be accused of acting WITHOUT MORALS (which is bad if something illegal happened).

She can be fired for refusing to serve a customer. But so can a waitress be for angering a customer - or a customer "getting up and leaving".

De minimis lex non curat - The law does not notice trifling matters.

Fractionem diei non recipit lex - The law does not regard a fraction of a day.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS GROWN STUPID, AND ILLEGALLY SHOWS A DEMOCRAT BIAS over that of the nature of "free beings under the Constitution"

The USSC awarded people harmed by Microsoft $1 in 1998. But awarding two people who "didn't get their flowers" well over $1000.

Democrats did all that, all the wasted court time: to call a woman wrong.

But still she is free and I hope now is twice as un-likely to do as they demand.

(the injury of "not getting flowers" isn't a matter one is allowed to take to court especially the supreme court, nor is failure to get the right toppings at subway)

(the supreme court is to hold religion high in the law unless there is a matter of action against others that is strictly held illegal and harmful)

a woman being fire for her beliefs does not harm anyone

people get fired for disagreeing with management on a continual basis

the USSC is just full of shit letting this name calling game of a case rise so high

THE CORRECT LEGAL ANSWER WAS; all of you get out - the matter is not legally to be heard and has already wasted too much of your all's day today