Ruth Ann Dailey is at it again. Her religion is too important to bothered by laws. Her views are too narrow to accept multiculturalism.
This past week, in response to the Indiana RFRA debate, she wrote:
Mrs. Stutzman had been serving customer Rob Ingersoll for nine years, knowing he was gay and providing the flowers he sent to his partner. But when he decided to marry and asked her to do the floral arrangements for the wedding, she hesitated.
“As much as I love Rob, I just couldn’t,” she said.
As much as Mrs. Stutzman loves Rob, she loves her God more. In her strict Southern Baptist religion, “marriage is a sacred covenant” that represents the holy union between Jesus and the church. She “couldn’t be part of” a wedding that would not conform to that model.
Excuse me? A part of his wedding? What? As bridesmaid? As an attendant? As an observer?
None of the above.
Rob needed some flowers and asked if she would have them delivered or available for pick up. That is not being a part of a wedding.
I wonder, does Mrs. Stutzman quiz all or her customers about what they are going to do with the flowers you purchase? Does Mrs. Stutzman provide flowers to Jewish weddings or secular weddings that clearly do not represent “the holy union between Jesus and the church.” Are those weddings also subject to same scrutiny and derision?
Ruth Ann went on to write:
Even though there are florists whose God does not require abstaining from same-sex weddings, the number of cases like Mrs. Stutzman’s continues to grow, involving bakers, photographers and even ministers.
So apparently not only does every florist have God, but there are multiple Gods that they can choose from??? On that front, Ruth Ann is making progress, as I thought she only believe that there was one true God. But, then she added ministers to her hit list. Really? Ministers are asked to perform weddings against their belief?
A minister or priest is the one person that can say “No” and they do it all the time. The Catholic Church won’t even marry you for second time unless you go through a silly, symbolic annulment process that says the first marriage was invalid (even if it produced what are now, apparently, ‘illegitimate’ children).
Dailey’s logic would clearly support the Cranston Rhode Island florists that refused to send flowers to Jessica Ahlquist for having won a court case about an illegal prayer banner in a public school, despite long-standing public accommodation laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion.
Ruth Ann, the problem is that sometimes a florist is just a florist.