In his 60-page decision, Ekstrom sided with the state and the couple. “For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief,” he wrote.We can't have The State's religious beliefs questioned by mere citizens. Even if the inconvenience to the complaining couple is trivial, the State must stamp out dissent;
Waggoner, senior counsel with the nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement that Ingersoll and Freed “had no problem getting the flowers they wanted. They received several offers for free flowers, and the marketplace gives them plenty of options. Laws that are supposed to prohibit discrimination might sound good, but the government has begun to use these laws to hurt people — to force them to conform and to silence and punish them if they don’t violate their religious beliefs on marriage.”The defendant herself;
Stutzman said in the same statement that, “I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment. Others have the freedom to say or not say what they want to about marriage, and that’s all I’m asking for as well.”All the comrades are equal, but some comrades have the right to impose their beliefs on others.