WA Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Liberty

is being played out in front of us with so many issues –  the Islamists – and the Sodomite/Lesbian  (What God calls ABOMINATIONS) crowd.  Scripture is filled with massive warnings against this stuff but so few pay attention.  Just as in the Days of Noah.
An entire month set aside to honor and celebrate the ABOMINATIONS – this is insanity in full throttle.   America has truly become the modern version of Sodom & Gomorrah – and it shall suffer the same fate.

Genesis 18:20 – And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Genesis 19:1-38 – And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;   (Read More…)

Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 – Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.   (Read More…)

Luke 10:10-13 – But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,   (Read More…)

Jude 1:7 – Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

This *Washington State Court ruling* fits right in with the political stand in this state on Sodomites and Lesbians sinful life.

Lift Barronelle Stutzman in prayer for her appeal to be heard and ruled on to allow Christians to not be forced to appease the demands of the ABOMINATIONS.  Think of the uproar that would be screamed out if Christians demanded that the ABOMINATIONS honor the Commandments of God.  Imagine a MONTH of celebrating and promoting the Ten Commandments as there is for these ABOMINATIONS of the Sodomites.

Jackie Juntti
WGEN  idzrus@earthlink.net
It isn’t who you are –  It is WHOSE you are ! ! ! !

WA Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Liberty

The florist will appeal her First Amendment case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Culture Beat · Jun. 10, 2019

The Washington Supreme Court last week upheld its previous ruling in the case of a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. The court had originally ruled against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, finding that she had violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Following the ruling last year, Stutzman appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the justices declined to hear the case, directing the Washington Supreme Court to review the case to determine if the state’s ruling was motivated by “religious animus.” The justices pointed to their own ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

It’s hard to see how the Washington court determined that there was no “religious animus” behind the state’s citation of Stutzman, as she clearly did attempt to comply with the homosexual couple’s request without at the same time violating her own religious convictions. Stutzman offered to sell the couple any pre-arranged floral bouquets they wished, while objecting to having to create art (speech) specifically for their wedding.

Meanwhile, The Daily Caller reports, “While state prosecutors sued Stutzman personally ­ an aggressive step that makes her personally liable for fines and damages ­ they did not take action against a coffeehouse owner who profanely expelled a group of Christians from his business. [Alliance Defending Freedom] argues this enforcement pattern is the kind of discrimination the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling condemns.”

Again, just last year in a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission had acted with anti-religious hostility when it cited Christian baker Jack Phillips for violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws after he refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the larger issue ­ the question over the constitutionality of these state anti-discrimination laws ­ but rather ruled narrowly on the state of Colorado’s biased application of the law. As National Review’s David French put it, the Court “punted on the core First Amendment question at issue: Can the government compel a creative professional to exercise his artistic talents to advance a message with which he disagrees?”

Stutzman, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, plans to appeal once again to the U.S. Supreme Court. ADF Vice President John Bursch explained, “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.”

This is indeed a case the U.S. Supreme Court needs to take up and rule on definitively, not dodge the main issue like it did in Phillips’s case.

Washington court upholds ruling against Christian florist

The Supreme Court of Washington state ruled against Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman on Thursday, finding that prosecutors did not act with religious animus in their prior decision against her. Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., faces unprecedented punishment from the state, including threats to her personal assets, because her Biblical beliefs about marriage precluded her making custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year vacated the earlier ruling against her and ordered the Washington high court to review Stutzman’s case in light of the ruling in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who declined to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding because of his religious beliefs about marriage. In Phillips’ case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the baker did not receive fair adjudication and that the prosecutors showed animosity towards his religious beliefs. The Washington Supreme Court judges said they found no such animus toward Stutzman.

“After this review, we are confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion. We therefore find no reason to change our original decision in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop,” the judges wrote.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which defended Stutzman, tweeted that the ruling minimizes the Supreme Court’s protections of religious liberty.

“Barronelle serves all customers; she simply declines to celebrate or participate in sacred events that violate her deeply held beliefs,” ADF Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said in a statement. “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.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. GRG [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

%d bloggers like this: