I'm not required to. The case isn't about the wedding, it's about the participants.<quoted text>and you have failed to show where a wedding is a protected event or somehow is covered by the law. as it clearly is not.
She serviced wedding in the past, and she stated that she was not serving this one because the outcome would be that two gays would be married. She noted she "couldn't support that", as if she had been asked to support it. She wasn't. She was asked to make flower arrangements. Or, in your eyes, she was asked to make art. In either scenario, her support was neither requested or required. And her refusal to perform this particular job rests solely on the fact that the participants in the wedding were homosexual. Whether she had sold flowers to homosexuals in the past because she approved of how the flowers were going to be used in other scenarios is irrelevant.<quoted text>
you also can not show that she declined this event simply and only because they were a homosexual couple.
She declined this event solely because the end result would be that two "homosexuals" would be married. Are you trying to pretend there were other reasons? Well Barry, since you seem to have such insight into her thoughts and reasoning, why don't you present them?!!! There is NOTHING funnier, than watching a bigot try to establish alternative reasons for why they need to discriminate against certain people!!! Please, have at it!!! Why did the florist refuse to service this wedding if it had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants?
I'm sure she would. In this case it would be because of the gender of the participants. That's still illegal in Washington State. She would still be breaking the law. She would still be discriminating. But outside of your make believe scenario, the fact still remains that she refused that ACTUAL job, because of the sexual orientation of the patrons.<quoted text>
i am claiming that if they were two heterosexual men forming a union that the state would have to call a marriage that she would have declined to service that also.
Once again, that's utter bullshyt. And you know it. The fact that you deny it only demonstrates how desperate you are to justify her discrimination. It paints you as quite ugly.<quoted text>
so once again, it was about the event and not about who they were.