Washington State AG Sues Florist For Refusing to Provide Flowers to S-S Ceremony


Like clockwork, those who disagree with gay marriage are being fined and forced out of the public square -- by the state-imposed redefinition of marriage:

Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple.

The complaint was filed in Benton County on Tuesday against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland. The lawsuit is in response to a March 1 incident where she refused service to longtime customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman did not return a call Tuesday night seeking comment. Ferguson had sent a letter on March 28 asking her to comply with the law, but said Stutzman's attorneys responded Monday saying she would challenge any state action to enforce the law. Washington state voters upheld a same-sex marriage law in November, and the law took effect in December. The state's anti-discrimination laws were expanded in 2006 to include sexual orientation.

Ferguson seeks a permanent injunction requiring the store to comply with the state's consumer protection laws and seeks at least $2,000 in fines. (AP)


  1. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:32 pm | Permalink


    a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : corrupt

    b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : misdirect


    a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : misuse

    b : to twist the meaning or sense of : misinterpret

  2. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:34 pm | Permalink


    a : worthless, counterfeit

    b : questionable, suspicious


    a : differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal

    b (1) : eccentric, unconventional (2) : mildly insane : touched

    c : absorbed or interested to an extreme or unreasonable degree : obsessed

    d (1) often disparaging : homosexual (2) sometimes offensive : gay 4b


    : not quite well

  3. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Corruption: 1

    a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity

    b : decay, decomposition

    c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)

    d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct - Merriam Webster

  4. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:36 pm | Permalink


    a : happily excited : merry

    b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits


    a : bright, lively

    b : brilliant in color


    : given to social pleasures; also : licentious


    a : homosexual

    b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals

  5. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    These miscreants will have to redefine all of human history just to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity.

    Depravity: a state of corruption due to original sin held in Calvinism to infect every part of man's nature and to make the natural man unable to know or obey God.

  6. peter
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Don't forget to include the definition of "randy " in you list of similar words.

  7. peter
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    Don't forget to include the definition of "randy " in your list of similar words.

  8. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Randy: Shield (Old English)

    The Lord is a shield for those who put their faith in him.

  9. Richard
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Randy, I've made it a practice since the SCOTUS hearings to ignore you as, to use an analogy, your comments squarely place you in the minors (baseball and childish are both appropriate) but you offer me a retort I can't refuse with your definitions above. Let's see, it works like this:
    Randy - pervert...all fit but especially 1a and 2b
    Queer...absolutely every one especially 3
    Corrupt...a, b, c and, yup, d
    Gay ( this is fun) probably 4a but certainly 4b
    Sorry, Randy, you opened yourself up to that; now I go back to ignoring you.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. —Confucius

  11. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra, your post (number 16 here) is spot on! I concur wholeheartedly.

  12. John B.
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    So will NOM support me if I refuse to serve Christians in my business because I don't approve of them?

  13. John B.
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    BTW NOM's mantra has always been "let the people vote". Well, the people did vote in Washington State, just like NOM wanted, so where is the problem???

  14. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    100% John!

    But refusing service to 88% of the population will probably put you in the record books with the most unsuccessful business plan ever.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    "so where is the problem???"

    The problem here is that your hero's seem to be under the impression that the 1st Amendment was rendered null and void when 53% of the voting population of the State of Washington declared their opposition to it.

  16. Ash
    Posted April 10, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Barb summed the issue up well in post #41.

  17. Tom Baker
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 12:01 am | Permalink

    "Religion is a choice, homosexuality is not."

    Nonsense. No one is "born homosexual".

  18. Bobby
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    Tom Baker -Were you born heterosexual or did you chose to be heterosexual?

  19. Jenny
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    I am sure this florist looks into the morals of all her customers to evaluate if she will be 'going against her religious faith'... I am sure she would not serve a divorcee or an adulterer.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    I'm sure if an unapologetic divorcee, or adulterer, requested arrangements for a ceremony celebrating their debauchery they would be refused service as well.

    But at least you were willing to admit that "homosexuality" is as depraved as adultery and divorce is; a step in the right direction.

  21. Chris
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    Anytime NOM claims to be not "Anti-gay" but "pro-marriage" I come on to the blog and rad the comments. Maybe NOM should look at their supporters first before making claims

  22. bman
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Jenny->I am sure this florist looks into the morals of all her customers to evaluate if she will be 'going against her religious faith'... I am sure she would not serve a divorcee or an adulterer.

    Its not about the owner examining the customer's morals but its about the gay customer not respecting the moral conscience of the owner when kindly told it was an issue.

    The inhumanity of the gay customer's response is the relevant issue.

    The gay customer should have responded graciously, showing respect and understanding for the owner's beliefs, and agreed to use a different florist.

    Voters who voted for SSM in the past probably did so because they thought it was about "live and let live."

    If they understood gays could, and would, use their votes to force Christian business owners to materially participate in gay marriages against their conscience, or be fined or shut down, I think those voters would vote against SSm instead.

    As more gays inhumanely use the law to deprive others of businesses and earnings, as more gays support it openly as Richard and Robert have done here, it should result in reduced support from "live and let live" voters.

  23. Bobby
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    bman - Obviously there is more to this case than what is presented in the above blog. The interesting thing is that Mr. Ingersoll is described as a "longterm customer" of Ms. Stutzman. What other florist would one expect Ingersoll to go to for flowers for his wedding. It would appear Stutzman is looking for 15 minutes of fame.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 9:43 am | Permalink


    I believe what you meant to say was:

    "Based on the evidenced presented by the defenders of marriage on this site people really should hate sexual deviants"

    There; I fixed it!

  25. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink


    The fact that Mr. Ingressoll admits that He is a " long time customer" of Ms. Stuntman only serves to prove that Ms. Stutzman does not discriminate based on sexual preference; only the celebration of sexual preference.

  26. Chris
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Randy, I have a challenge for you. Go to a street corner in a city, and hold up a sign calling gays "Depraved"; "Deviants", "Willing victims" and whatever terms you care to see fit. Come back and tell me how it goes.

  27. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 11:04 am | Permalink


    Are you saying marriage corruption supporters are violent and intolerant?

  28. bman
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    After more checking I discovered the gay customer complained on face book and it was others who who complained to the state.

    My apologies for not checking it out first.

  29. Chris
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 11:35 am | Permalink


    What I am saying is that people will tell you that you are hateful to your face. You would be as well received as the Westboro Baptist Church, I'd imagine. But no, I don't think there would be any violence against you. Just people telling you how wrong you are and explaining that you are a hateful person.

  30. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 12:27 pm | Permalink


    Hate is not a crime; nor is it indicative of being wrong. Your bumpersticker slogans may make you feel better about the choices you made, but they do not make you right.

    "Always do right. this will gratify some and astonish the rest." Samuel Clemens

  31. Bobby
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    So do the right thing Randy and accept your gay brothers and sisters in the Lord.

  32. Randy E King
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Depravity: a state of corruption due to original sin held in Calvinism to infect every part of man's nature and to make the natural man unable to know or obey God.

    The very nature of your proclivity precludes you from ever knowing the Lord.

  33. Chairm
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    To the SSMers who claim this is a case based on unjust discrimination against gay this or gay that, please explain if the event was for a same-sex sexual type of relationship.

    If it was just for a party with no other sexual nor moral implications, then, was the event for an SSM?

    More: do you have a reasoned basis for your SSM moralism? Please explain.

  34. peter
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Chairman, sto posting after hitting the dubie. You make no sense.

  35. peter
    Posted April 11, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, stop posting after hitting the dubie. You make no sense.

  36. Posted April 12, 2013 at 12:21 am | Permalink

    You didn't make sense either, Peter.

  37. Posted April 12, 2013 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    Liberals have constructed a false opposition between "inborn" versus “free” choice. The problem with this false opposition is that it eliminates from consideration a very large and significant part of the mind that is neither inborn, nor chosen. There is a very important third sphere that is being left out and which is very real and which complements the other two.

    A person is born with a developmental matrix, including to develop into a heterosexual adult that has healthy, adult relationships with the opposite sex. However, this matrix is not finished and it will change (including being deformed) in a variety of directions. Therefore, the mind has a deep plasticity; regarding many characteristics, it’s not hard-wired. if you had been abused or had had other deforming experiences, they could impact how your mind functioned regarding sexuality and the opposite sex.

    So, a key point is that any person’s mind will develop conscious and unconscious mechanisms and dynamics that can deeply affect it later in life, which were not present when this individual was born.

    This is why people are not born pedophiles, homosexuals, necrophiles, etc. Although there are different levels of choices regarding sexuality and one’s behaviors, no one with a particular sexuality dysfunction deliberately chooses all of its dynamics – and *especially* not the unconscious ones. Since when do you choose what goes on in your unconscious? However, this doesn’t mean we are helpless, little creatures with no free will.

    So, human beings are born heterosexual but they aren’t finished as infants. That means that a person’s mind will change and develop or degenerate in infinite ways. Homosexuality is similar to any other psycho-sexual dysfunction – in terms of being a dysfunction. It is not inborn, but like other dysfunctions, such a disorder or dysfunction is developed over time, due to a set of factors that can vary from individual to individual.

    You solve the underlying psychological, cultural, sociological issues producing various homosexual dynamics in the mind of such an individual, and the person lives as they were born to be: heterosexual. It’s not a question of changing the blueprint, it’s a question of solving underlying issues that are preventing the person from relating to the opposite sex, or which are disorienting the person towards the same sex.

  38. Posted April 12, 2013 at 3:47 am | Permalink


    There is nothing that consists in a sound argument of why a person would be born deformed as a homosexual.

    Because a person with a homosexual problem is not the same as an intersex person. That an intersex person could be disoriented towards the same sex is understandable, because of their lack of correct sexual definition – which is biological. But these people are not whom we are referring to when we say “homosexual.”

    What we call a homosexual is a person who is biologically heterosexual, but only psychologically has problems with heterosexuality. There is no reason why anyone would be born this way, just as there is no reason why anyone would be born a pedophile, a necrophile, etc.

  39. peter
    Posted April 12, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Acccepting your theory means accepting that such neuroplasticity must go both ways. What would be required to transition a heterosexual to 100% homosexual? Is that realistic?

  40. bman
    Posted April 12, 2013 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    peter->Acccepting your theory means accepting that such neuroplasticity must go both ways. What would be required to transition a heterosexual to 100% homosexual? Is that realistic?

    Theoretically, an immature state of heterosexual development might be more susceptible to neuroplastic changes than a matured state of heterosexual development.

    The theory could still remain intact, therefore, no matter how your question is answered.

    Dr.Neil Whitehead has an interesting discussion on neuroplasticity in the chapter titled "Are Brains Gay?"

    You can download the entire book or just that one chapter from at

  41. Posted April 12, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Bobby: I would challenge you regarding the Christian doctrine you claim in your statement, above (#81):

    "So do the right thing Randy and accept your gay brothers and sisters in the Lord."

    First, what do you mean by "accept"? Did anyone check for "gayness" at the entrance of the church?

    Black people we can tell who they are, so could ban them from marrying whites (of the opposite sex). But they are no longer slaves. "Gay" people look just like the rest of us, but argue that in private they are different. That's why no legislation can be made based on "gayness" - only same-sex. And notice that all marriage law uses sex/gender as the determining factor (opposite-sex and same-sex - - add it up and you get everybody, duh), and always excludes some people. I exclude same-sex friendships.

  42. bman
    Posted April 12, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Bobby->So do the right thing...and accept your gay brothers and sisters in the Lord.

    I think we should accept Christians who struggle with SSA who refuse to define themselves as gay, and who define themselves as obedience to Christ.

    Jesus said, "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Mat 12:50)

    Here, for example, is how a Christian man struggling with SSA describes himself,

    "....ontologically speaking, my core identity is as a man, made in the image and likeness of God

    .. his truth about who I am, stitched into my very embodiedness as a man, supersedes any subjective experience I might have of feeling (or being) gay...

    ....we believe a falsehood about our nature when we embrace a gay identity,

    Sexual intercourse is moral only between a man and a woman within marriage and only when the spouses respect the procreative end of the marital act.

    You probably did not intend persons with that mindset in your comment, though.

    Most likely, you meant those who advocate gay pride, who refuse to confess gay sex as sin, and promote gay sex as moral to others.

    Scripture says to reprove those who will not accept sound doctrine, and that describes the group you intended.

    1 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

    4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    From such turn away.

  43. Posted April 12, 2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Notice that Christianity excludes sodomy whether between same-sex male friends or opposite-sex friends or marriages. But the problem with same-sex male friendships is: they have only sodomy as the intimate extreme act. Opposite-sex partners have the sexual act, and therefore do not need the unnatural and even dangerous sodomy act. Another problem is the similarity to bestiality - where do they stop experimenting? Well, all they have to do is "experiment" with natural sexuality, for which they have the "tools". Problem is, they might like it.

    My challenge to Bobby still stands, though Bman already beat me into the doctrinal discussion. It turns out to be a new topic on this blog, as far as I know. We already know, and I have told Bobby, that the Pope (were he to have time) would also agree to accept the sinner, but not the sin. Both the New Testament and the Pope disagree with:

    "So do the right thing Randy and accept your gay brothers and sisters in the Lord." (If "accept" means to let them change the Catholic doctrine, at will, for convenience.)

    And this has to do with this post, because Jenny argued the couple to be married was denied service by the florist because the longtime customer turned out to be "Gay". This has been rebutted over and over.

    So, SSmers are allowed civil disobedience, but not faithful Christians? Problem is, faithful Christians stand their ground. We can't be trusted to "go with the flow."

  44. Posted April 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    I see Bobby chickened out per my Biblical challenge.

    In any secular controversial issue, people with Biblical view and arguments have a right to be respected for their opinions and right to free speech, just like all other voters.

    There are Biblical instructions / admonitions to Christians which are not being followed. This is a direct causation for the issue of SSm we are experiencing. If all Christians stood by Biblical principles, the SSm movement wouldn't have gotten off the ground. The Civil Rights movement was due to Biblical Christianity, starting in England with the call for the abolition of slavery, to Abraham Lincoln, to the Civil War. Look what it took, how many lives were lost in that Culture War for equal rights. That war has been won, and any adult can marry an adult from the opposite sex with few exceptions.

    The case against SSm is well developed now, and clear for those who don't begin with their sympathetic conclusion and reason backwards.

  45. P. Edward Murray
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    How we choose to behave is always a choice.
    Sex is a choice between a man and woman results in the next generation.

    2 Guys or 2 Gals cannot create a baby.

    Our parents ...biological were not gay and that's how we got here.

    Trying to force acceptance is also a choice and ultimately it will fail.

  46. Chairm
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 12:45 am | Permalink


    What is the basis for claiming that this is a case of unjust sexual orientation discrimination?

    If you have no basis, then, you have no complaint.

    Is SSM a public sexual type of relationship or is the gay stuff not mandatory for those who'd SSM?

    The answer, by the way, is nope -- no gay stuff is mandatory. So, what is the basis for complaining about the florist? Your certitude is empty moralism.

  47. peter
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    Religious discrimination.

  48. Chairm
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink


  49. Posted April 14, 2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Richard: Your folly - "Gays (noun) exist because they say so".

    This is not a quote, it is a paraphrase. Quotation marks are formally used for more than quotes.

    it is simple to understand if you are not already biased: We wouldn't know "Gays" (a noun with ambiguous meaning) or about Gayness if such "Gays" did not tell us.

    In contrast, we would know about "Straights" (most generally by their biological makeup), whether they told us or not (upon inspection, and based on knowledge of human biology)

    We would know about Blacks without Blacks telling us they are Black, or partially Black. In some instances they might be so racially mixed they might look non-Black.

    Now, we know that people who say they are "Gay" do exist - the person exists. What we do not know is whether their Gayness exists.

    Since their Gayness has been the basis for them claiming a right to marry by the State (not only by the church), we would like to know how they can prove not only they exist as living persons, but that their Gayness exists on top of it.

    For me, I will continue to think they are mentally affected, and therefore say their Gayness is natural - that "Gays exist". The burden of proof is on them, and even if they can prove it, they do not have a reasonable basis to change the conditions for marriage. If they change it, it can be changed back. And that is why it is so important to preserve the Federal conditions for marriage as between opposite-sex. Otherwise, once one State begun to experiment with genderless marriage (and still ban blood-related couples, and minors who might love each other), the Federal definition would have to be made genderless, and all the States (41) which agreed with that definition would be paying for Fed. benefits for same-sex marriages .

  50. Jane J.
    Posted April 15, 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    I take it that this is the only flower store in that town. I am glad that Ms. Stutzman is fighting back and I sincerely hope that she is able to gain some ground in this issue. The rights of Christians are being eroded right before everyone's eyes in the name of "equality".

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.