Lengthening Shadow of the Grim Gaystapo!
This vile agenda has long come to resemble something like an old Chicago protection racket, ‘don’t make no waves and we’ll leave you be’ (except the intolerance of the ‘gays’ is never going to leave decent people be) 
This time the persecution is taking place in Washington State, one of the handful of states to legalise the absurdity known as ‘gay marriage’ last year.
Flushed with that triumph, a pair of miserable ‘gay’ wretches have enlisted not only the ACLU but also the State Attorney General to bring legal action against the harmless owner of a small business, Baronelle Stutzman.
Why? No fathomable reason we can see.
Listen to the whining queers – “The florist discriminated against us as a result of our sexual orientation. Because we’re a gay couple, she chose not to serve us. We feel like that’s something she should not be allowed to do.”
Arrogant toe-rags, hardly a gay couple at all, in the proper sense of ‘gay,’ before the word was stolen by perverts and its meaning bastardised. but mean-spirited and absolutely intolerant of the lady’s Christian conscience!
Yahoo News reports that she would not sell flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her religious beliefs…refusal to sell flowers to the couple is a disturbing reminder of the unequal treatment that gay men and women have experienced over the years,” said Sarah Dunne, ACLU of Washington legal director…
Hogwash. You can buy flowers at lots of shops – all these two blossoms had to do was respect the lady’s beliefs and mince round the block, sure to find a less principled florist.
But we expect no better from that pinko ACLU outfit.
Enter the Attorney General. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
Good grief, it’s not legal action that’s needed, but legislative action, to get rid of the state statute that affronts freedom of conscience thus. Why should ANYONE, in any business, have to play blind to the clear distinction between normal and deviant?
But the good news is that this brave little lady is fighting back.
Her attorney, Justin Bristol – “She is one of the few people left today willing to stand by her convictions rather than compromise her beliefs. She’s a very nice lady and doesn’t have a discriminatory bone in her body, but she doesn’t want to be forced to participate in an event that she doesn’t believe in.I one hundred percent believe this is a freedom-of-expression and free-exercise-of-religion issue.
What the government is saying here is that you don’t have the right to free religious exercise.”
And there may be a further bit of good news too, if the tail-end of the report we read that the case is reigniting the gay marriage debate in the state where 54 percent of residents voted to legalize gay marriage in November.
Anyway, the shake-down exercise is under way. The ACLU lawsuit seeks damages for Ingersoll and Freed, as well as a court order barring Stutzman from discriminating against customers. The state seeks $2,000 in penalties from the business and a permanent injunction, which would require Stutzman to comply with state laws.
Damages? What damage did they suffer, except a bit of shoe-leather walking to the next store? Penalties? Why should this woman be penalised?
Time to roll-back this evil agenda?
Reply