Wednesday, April 17, 2013

How To "Really" Help Arlene's Flowers In Richland Washington

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The ACLU and Attorney General Bob Ferguson have started the legal assault on Barronnelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington because on March 1, she refused to cater flowers to a same-sex "wedding" in the Tri-Cities.

We talked about this incident both on our daily radio program and our daily blog.

This week I noticed that a couple of faith based organizations have begun raising funds on her behalf. While this seems, on the surface, to be commendable, time and experience tells me things are often not as they seem, particularly with certain organizations.

Yesterday I had a personal conversation with Barronnelle.

She shared her heart in regard to how she is responding to the suit filed by A/G Ferguson and to how people can really help her during this difficult time.


As you will recall, back on March 1, Barronnelle declined to provide flowers for a homosexual "marriage" between Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, even though they had been long time customers.

She said her personal, biblical faith would not allow her to provide for a "wedding" of people of the same-sex.

To do so would violate her conscience.

As expected, the ACLU has moved forward on the matter bringing national attention.

KOMO News reports that the ACLU is demanding that Barronnelle make a public apology to the two men and that she be required to provide flowers for gay marriages.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson is now suing the shop owner for discrimination.

The complaint, filed on Tuesday, demands that Stutzman be fined at least $2000 and the store be given a permanent injunction requiring it to comply with the newly expanded (2006) anti-discrimination laws.

In other words, they are attempting to force her to violate her religious beliefs and her conscience in how she runs her own business.

She says she will not compromise. This reminds us of A/G McKenna's relentless pursuit of the Stormans family because they refused to carry Plan B abortion pills in their pharmacy in Olympia. After years of litigation and lost business, it has cost the Stormans family well over $500,000 in legal costs ---who knows how much in lost business?

Barronnelle says she will not bow to this attack on her religious beliefs. She told me she has truly placed it in God's hands and knows His will, will be done. She is trusting Him on the matter.

Does she need help? Absolutely.

I am strongly suggesting you help her financially, but not through some other faith based organization. Here's why. In recent events, particularly in regards to the defense of marriage, specifically R-71 and R-74, monies have been given to certain organizations intended to help with the specific issue at hand, but, I believe, have been used to help fund the organization instead. In some cases more than that for which the funds were raised.

Barronnelle told me she has not approved any other fund raising. Obviously she will take whatever is sent to her, however, I would strongly recommend to my readers you send it directly to her, rather than through someone else.

She asks that all funds be sent to:
Arlene's Defense Fund
1177 Lee Blvd.
Richland, WA. 99352

Or you may give to the Fund at any Key Bank branch in Washington state.

We were told when the domestic partners legislation was passed, that everything would be just fine now. It was an expression of fairness.

We were told when homosexual "marriage" was legalized that all religious rights and expressions were covered. Everything would be just fine. Religious people need not be concerned.

However, this is only the beginning.

In the dark world of sin and evil, there is always one more barrier to break through, one more social more to discard and one more biblical institution to redefine.

This is why we must be Vigilant. And Discerning. And Prayerful. And Active. In order to Be Blessed.

49 comments:

  1. You have once again stated the problem very clearly. I'm amazed at the Christians who have fallen for the sound bite 'marriage equality'. It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with turning faces away from the practice of homosexuality. A clever sound bite does not change the problem.

    By the way, I have a serious propensity toward rage. Even in my advanced years it has not gone away. However, I quickly discovered it is not appreciated in civil society, there are no communities supporting it, I found I have to use personal restraint and God's help to not act out on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sound doctrine is not for the lost, but for the righteous. We must stand firm in the LORD as an example of light and salt, lest we lose this nation to the lost. Thank you for your analogy.

      Delete
    2. Why don't they just go to another Flower store? Come on really.. This is America so they have a choice. See the big problem is that Gay people already have most rights and benefits, they just want to impose there will on other people, especially this countries religious foundation. I'm sure over 60% of Gay people don't believe in the institution of Marriage, they just want it because the law says they can't.. This is the words of Elton John about Gay Marriage ""We have a civil partnership," he said, talking about he and longtime partner, David Furnish. "What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage," he said to USA Today at a gala for his Elton John AIDS Foundation in 2008. "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off."

      Delete
    3. Christians. We must take on this from a legal point of view. Citizens can not be forced into a contract against their will. A business contract is just that, a contract. We must attack these new laws with existing law. You know, Love God and Love one another. Forcing someone to cater a gay wedding is not love. It is an unlawful contract, indentured servitude, and even torture. Violations of several parts of the constitution.

      Delete
  2. Thsnks Gary. You are standing tall. Blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pastors and congregations should protest in front of Bob Ferguson's house. There must be public rebukes for those attempting to enforce immoral laws.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Baronelle'ns claims of conscience don't hold up to scrutiny. She claims providing flowers for a same-sex wedding would violate her supposedly deeply held religious beliefs, and points to the past ten years of delivering bouquets for Robert and Curt during their courtship and relationship as proof that she isn't motivated by animus. But doesn't the fact that for ten years - starting before the non-discrimination law was passed- to a same sex couple, complete with notes from Robert to Curt and vice-versa undermine her claims of a deeply held religious beliefs? How is it possible that these deeply held beliefs weren't violated by facilitating a same-sex courtship and relationship?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This action on Bob Ferguson's part is NO big surprise to me. He is showing himself as the anti-Jesus Christ liberal he really is. For shame. Glad I didn't vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is to bad that the original intent of the marriage equality would accommodate all religious rights and expressions. I guess sociological trends and fads bring about a unique deception at the time of the fad or trend only to manifest what is happening, and now look. I thought we had conscience laws to protect us, they appear worthless to our Attorney General. I will be praying for this person, and may God's will be done!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Untrue.

      First, this is not related to marriage or domestic partnership laws. It's related to the anti-discrimination law amendment passed in 2006. By the way, religion is covered in that law, too.

      Secondly, religious protections in the marriage law are also provided by the US constitution within religious organizations, but in public accommodation, religious individuals do not get a free pass to discriminate while the rest of us have to serve all customers.

      Delete
    2. What is unfortunate is that in this country we have always respected all people , we allowed differences and choice . We based our Laws on the fact that government did not have the right to undermine or force other religions to comply with the state religion . We see now states attemting us to be forced to purchase abortion coverage , and as easlit seen here forcring a person to support a ceremony that directly disagrees with thousands of years of tradition and Faith by one of the major religions of the world . I understand the law , we can not discriminate against the KKK if they wanted to rent a school auditorium if the school had been renting it out to the PTA . But common sense says this law would have caused more problems then the KKK . So yes in this country people no longer get a free pass to Freedom of Religion , we still have freedom to worship . But their is a difference . Your support for one freedom over another is based on your personal beliefs . The state compelling someone to violate their religion is no different then when a Baptist tells a Catholic or when an athesist tells a Baptist they have to behave and recognize and support different beliefs .

      Mick

      Delete
  7. Don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with forcing Barronnelle to "violate her religious beliefs and her conscience."

    She has without a doubt provided flowers for weddings that have violated her religious beliefs and conscience for years: couples who've had premarital sex, previously divorced couples, Mormon couples, atheist couples, couples in open relationships. She provided services for all of them in spite of her religious beliefs, but a gay couple comes along, and all of a sudden her religious beliefs kick in and she cannot provide a service.

    Why are only gay people singled out, but not others who supposedly violate biblical teachings? Because it has nothing to do with Biblical teaching; it has to do with a distaste for gay people.

    Furthermore, this case has absolutely nothing to do with the domestic partnership or marriage law in our state as Gary states. It has to do with the anti-discrimination law that was amended in 2006 to cover sexual orientation. Race, religion, marital status, and disability status, among others, have been covered for years.

    I doubt Barronnelle, Gary, those who offer their "blessings" to Gary on the comments to this story, or all others who wish to discriminate against gay people in public accommodations would stand for the same discrimination against Christians in public accommodations.

    Hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By your own admission, religion is covered in the anti-discrimination laws, so she should be able to say "no" to a homosexual couple. - - - You are also making the assumption (and I think a wrong one) that she knew if couples had had premarital sex, were divorced, etc. While she possibly might have known, there certainly are no guarantees that she would have.

      Delete
    2. Anti-discrimination laws prevent businesses from discriminating against you based on a trait, such as religion. When I said religion is included in that law, it means flower shops and other business cannot discriminate against customers because of the customer's religion. She does not have a right to discriminate against others because of her religion.

      The second part of your note is just silly. In every article I read she knew these men for a decade and gave no indication she was "surprised" to find out they weren't just friends giving each other flowers, but an actual couple.

      Furthermore, you help prove my point. If she's truly truly truly afraid to provide flowers to individuals who violate her religious beliefs, then she would be making inquiries for all couples who want to marry and buy flowers there. Since she has not, I can assume this is about gay people, not beliefs.

      Delete
    3. I would suggest we have a freedom of hypocrisy in this country when it comes to religious beliefs . Obviously we do in the secualr culture of tolerance and equality . But I would tend to agree with you . I think she made a mistake , but that is my opinion . The place of marriage in my opinion presented an opportunity to share her Faith with those who came to the wedding . Just like Jesus in his start of His Ministry chose a wedding ,
      Too often Christianity is seen from a us against them view point . I think Christians need to stop that , especially in this changing culture . Christianity spread by Christians going out and preaching the Gospel to the world , not making stands based on religious dos and don'ts .

      But then again I would bet many people would have hated this women even more . It is so much harder to face the world these days when morality is based on equality according to the popular cultures definitionon , and freedom is secondary .

      Delete
    4. You are so correct...These hypocrites turn my stomach.

      Delete
    5. It's pretty simple here. She holds a Washington state business license. She willigly interesd into a contract with the state to follow state laws. She violated state law by her discrimnation of the couple. It has NOTHING to do with religion only civil law. She has the option to abid by the law or turn in her license. It really is pretty simple. Even the far right christians should not be exempt from the law.

      Delete
    6. It is not that simple. You're just too simple to understand it's complexity.

      Delete
    7. Anon, the nature of many of those things is far less public. That is the whole point: one component of this is the knowledge that it would cause public scandal, and in order for her actions to really cause a public scandal, they have to be widely understood as a public assent. You can't assent to what you don't know; presumption (for instance, that a couple has had premarital sex) does people an injustice, and prying may in many circumstances be inappropriate too. With a same-sex ceremony, there's no hiding it or getting away from it. Gay couples may not be able to help it that they stand out with no explanation or disclosure of private information needed, but that isn't Barronnelle's fault either.

      Delete
  8. So, you all would be ok with my flower business, saying 'NO' to your christian wedding? Because it goes against my religion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. And we would have the common sense and decency to simply go somewhere else with our business. We wouldn't make a federal (or state) case out of it just because we didn't get our way.

      Delete
    2. Haha, yeah right. Yet, you go APOPLECTIC when a story says "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas." I'm sure you'd be just fine with businesses telling Christians to go away.

      If you truly believe this, then why don't you push to completely dismantle the anti-discrimination law?

      Delete
    3. Anon, I only speak for myself (you should try it! wink) but no, I don't go "apoplectic." I don't sue anybody. I remind myself that holiday is a derivative of 'Holy Day,' choose my battles so as not to be frivolous, and I certainly have never sued anyone. Not saying I would never, but it would have to be worth it. There is also a difference between a lawsuit and a personal boycott.

      Delete
  9. Being an American should afford a business owner freedom. What is this culture we live in where one person's freedom dictates the limits of another's?

    Everyone should be able to to run a business in a way that does not violate their religious beliefs. If someone believes something is a sin, they should have complete freedom to not profit by participation.

    That is one of the things that makes America land of the FREE and home of the BRAVE! The opposition to this is really disturbing, since the logic is so easily defended.

    Even if you passionately disagree with someone's views, you can choose whether to associate with them or not, and a business owner does not lose his or her own constitutional freedoms when applying for a business license!

    Why does the consumer's freedom (and they can certainly choose can't they?) trump the freedom of a business owner who can be sued for saying, "I want no part of that because I don't want to participate in, support, or profit from something I believe is a sin."

    Even with all the anger and hate that people feel about this subject, who can argue with the fact that it is utter insanity to for someone who is deeply passionate about their beliefs to sue someone for being equally passionate about their own?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kathy, I'm appalled that you would call discrimination "freedom"?!?! No one has the "freedom" to discriminate against others in public accommodations. No one. It's not a gay thing; it's an American thing.

      She is selling flowers. She is not condoning or supporting the choices, behavior, etc. of her customers.

      As other readers have already pointed out, she supplied flowers to this couple throughout their romantic relationship. She's provided flowers to plenty of non-Christian weddings, I'm sure. But all of a sudden, she has religious convictions? C'mon...

      Delete
    2. Your appalled ? If the KKK attemted to rent out a school building you would be appalled if the school district said no even though they rent it out for other reasons ?

      I totally would understand the school district's reasoning and actions . Perhaps not legal , but obviously not wanting to associate their school district with the KKK would be understandable . Tiger Woods lost many endorsements over his behavior , the corporations did not want their products associated with him , so they discriminated against his life style and fired him .

      Of course not selling Tiger Woods a product based on his life sty;e is another matter . But again such a basic religious and concept that moms and dads are more important in marriage , and that children all have an equal chance under the law for a mom and Dad is not so hard to understand from my perspective . Your feedom to discriminate against children is legal , but it is no more less discriminating /.

      C'mon.....

      Delete
    3. Anon 2: Tiger Woods or, for instance, Rush Limbaugh. :)

      Anon 1: explain why non-discrimination is across the board such a great good. Explain further why it is a greater good than the First Amendment. It's not self-evident to me.

      Surely if you think about it, you will realize that providing flowers to the extent needed at a typical wedding requires a level of involvement beyond a customer just walking in, saying what they want, buying it, and leaving? Who's going to transport and set up all those flowers if not the florist? The couple and their families are going to have way too much else on their plates the day of. Trust me, I have experience in another part of the wedding industry.

      Sacramental marriage is a subset issue. Arguing that sacramental marriage is better and fuller doesn't change the fact that marriage, itself, is a good. The idea of a "marriage" between two men and two women is qualitatively different than that of marriage between different faiths, races, etc. This is one thing I really wish non-religious people were better informed about -- ignorance is not bliss.

      Delete
  10. I was about to make a donation to Arlene's Flowers through another organization and frankly had some reservations in regard to what you said today. Thanks for being vigilant. I'm sending my money directly to her account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is going to need it if she decides to keep up this losing fight. Bigotry will not held up in any court of law. She is operating a business in the state of Washington with a Washington State business license. Either follow the law or turn in your license. Really an easy choice. Only person to make out here is that shister lawyer. This case is CLEARLY a loser for her and the bigots.

      Delete
    2. Anon, if it truly is bigotry then it won't and shouldn't hold up. But if it is principled opposition and not bigotry, she deserves to be left alone. You do not allow even the possibility; you have your mind made up. Is this how you practice non-judgmentalism? Hmm?

      Delete
  11. Why do gay activist demand compliance? If a business denies me services, fine I will go somewhere else. They say it is about discrimination, yet they are going to drag this small business through the mud and make a big deal out of it and make their point. I am a pastor, I will counsel according to the Word of God, it is wrong to disorder God's intent on marriage! My question is: Will they begin demanding my pastoral counseling to folks that want out of the lifestyle illegal? Not yet, but soon they will find a way to force compliance in my thought life and beliefs. I teach it, preach it and stand by God's Word and design for marriage. The activist and our biblical freedoms are at a cross-roads. Which one is going to give way? I tell you, my call as a pastor is not going to bend at their intimidations. Soon are you going to drag me into court because I am teaching in our church or home about it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've heard this song and dance before. Local radio host Michael Medved used to sing it, about how non-discrimination laws were unnecessary etc.

      Yet, when push came to show and KKKVI fired him, Medved broke a land speed record in filing a religious discrimination lawsuit, which he lost.

      Hypocrisy

      Delete
    2. Anon, perhaps. But you can't use one hypocrite to prove that everyone is a hypocrite. Non sequitur.

      Delete
  12. You folks really need to think about your discriminatory tendencies. White christian is a shrinking demographic and will soon be a shrinking minority. I think one day you'll be very happy for these civil protections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, it is shrinking... but then again we knew it would - "Matt. 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

      Delete
  13. After the Christians are gone, buddy, they're coming for you homosexuals....dontcha know?? Hitler came for you....Stalin came for you....and the Muslims routinely come for you in Islamic states! Wake up!1! Lucky you live in Christian dominated America!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'll help with a moving truck ! We donot want her bitotry in our town !

    ReplyDelete
  15. Religious bias does not provide a fee pass to bigotry. If it did we would still be stoning the adulter, and murdering each other at seafood parties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Religious bias does not provide a fee pass to bigotry."

      No it doesn't, but what makes you so convinced she is one? Do you know her? Would you be willing to sign your name to that, 'Anonymous'? It's really big of all these people with no names to make accusations on the internet, by the way!

      Delete
  16. As a contributor to R71 and R74, I have 2 questions for Pastor Randall-

    If these groups were not properly spending the money as they should have, why for Pete's sake didn't you tell us back then when we were mailing in the checks? Why are you telling us now, 4 years after R71 and 6 months after R74? Sorry for losing my temper but this just burns my ears.

    Also, I read in the papers that the Washington government bureaucrats who deal with elections and disclosure have voted against Family PAC and Mr. Backholm and have referred the matter to the Attorney General. I think it has to do with not reporting the work of a law firm in regard to the case about the R71 petitions. Pastor, you should say something about this, including whether you are involved. Either way, I do not care for Mr. Backholm or his approach to things and I hope that you don't get involved with him in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Without weighing in one way or another, have any of you (on either side) considered that government should in no way be involved with marriage? Why do we give tax breaks to married people (either straight or gay)? How is that fair to single people? Are they less important for some reason? Why can't we assign who we want to be able to visit us in the hospital or make decisions for us when we're incapacitated? Why can't we choose who will share our medical plans? If we die and don't have a will, the money will always go to the spouse automatically. How hard would it be to just designate who you want it to go to (like life insurance)?

    When looked at through the lens of legality, isn't marriage simply a bunch of legal papers that you sign in bulk? All of the questions I asked above *can* be arranged by lawyers anyway (but for more than the cost and ease of getting a wedding license, however).

    Of course you may say that this has to do with the welfare of children. But as a conservative person, I think sending kids to a government-sponsored indoctrination mill (public school) doesn't say much for how the government provides for the welfare of children anyway. Why should any conservative person trust them? Believe me, if you are a liberal and your kids were getting indoctrinated with conservative principles, you would howl with rage... just think about how you would feel. Conservatives (many of us aren't religious, btw) have to either home school, send them to religious school, or bite their tongues and settle for the unfair treatment or even trampling their values get in public schools (the Constitution is slowly being killed off, for example).

    I think we should get government *out* of the marriage business entirely. Leave it between people and their God, or just between the people themselves if they aren't believers. Odd as it sounded when I first thought of it, I think we should eliminate *all* government-designated marriages (or any other relationship "management" they are "helping" us with). If you are a conservative who believes in limited government, I would think you would take my "side" in this... just my two dollars worth (two cents won't buy anything anymore)...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why do we give tax breaks to married people (either straight or gay)?"

      Because marriage is a tremendous good not just for children, but for men and women? It is a known poverty reducer, for instance. With same-sex couples it is not so much a matter of denying them something that is rightly theirs, but of explaining that marriage isn't (or shouldn't be) what many people think it is: a terminable contract based on mutual feelings, as long as they last. I admit, that is challenging because there are valid points raised about divorce, etc. But as I have said before to friends, not taking a one-size-fits-all approach to related, but different problems doesn't indicate a lack of concern. I do not care for the status quo at all.

      The government, as much as it gets wrong, does get some things right. As the saying goes, "A broken clock..." well, you know.

      I am not unsympathetic to your position. I used to be what you call a limited-government conservative. Then I realized that what I really believed is that the government should be involved in the things it ought to be involved in, and not involved in the things it oughtn't. I'm sure that's clear as mud, exactly how I want it. ;) Limited-government conservatism had become, to me, a way of having ready and simple answers without much hard thinking required. Again, I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but that's what I have come to realize.

      Delete
    2. FWIW, I always refer if I can't do something, and I don't usually get into an explanation, which is a luxury I am fortunate to have.

      Delete
    3. So you're saying that without government preference or assistance, marriage would somehow be diminished or not participated in at all? Is marriage that weak of an institution? I guess you are fundamentally worried that some (or many) marriages would not exist without the government. Possibly people who get married only because they are told it's what they're supposed to do shouldn't get married in the first place. How successful are marriages that are "just because of the children", or marriages of convenience? Are children better off growing up with parents who don't love or respect each other?

      At least growing up with a single parent has some kind of integrity. I think a marriage based on government benefits or some kind of guilt is possibly detrimental to children. What do kids see as a model for a relationship in those situations? No real love... just two people who shouldn't really be together. Won't they just emulate that when they grow up? At least if they have a single parent the kids are (if the parent doesn't indoctrinate them with bitterness) hopefully able to have a good relationship later. I think a bad model is worse than no model.

      I think marriage can be great, and some do have good marriages. I just see a *lot* of failures where people are just hanging on out of fear, dependency or financial reasons. Just don't know if that is the best example for children, and certainly it isn't good for the growth or happiness of the parents. Just sayin'... I don't see how government involvement helps with any of these issues...

      And I take exception to the concept of limited government being a cop-out. Freedom is disappearing at an alarming rate, and possibly you have now joined in this without really thinking it through. Yes, we need government for all kinds of things... roads, police, firemen, military, safety regulations, even our broken legal system is still necessary until we get a better one (good luck). But is marriage something we *need* government to sanction? I thought that sanction was supposed to come from God, or at least what is in people's hearts.

      I have argued that what makes gay marriage wrong is that we now have *two* preferred populations... "straight" and "gay", while we really should have no preferred populations at all (this is not equality, and those who are not married are "less equal"). Two wrongs don't make a right. And just because the wrong has been around forever (i.e., government sanctioned relationships), doesn't make it OK. I personally resent the government inserting itself in my personal relationships... and don't you, really?

      Delete
  18. How timely:

    'The Hypocrisy Fallacy'

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well I really enjoyed reading it. This article provided by you is very practical for good planning….

    ReplyDelete
  20. Used to be an expression in business that the customer is always right. But I guess not in the eyes of this business owner. She is breaking the law simple as that and it's about time that she and the Christian right learned that discrimination has consequences. Where I live flower shops are going out of business left and right. I can only pray, yes pray that Arlene's Flowers follows suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No! Not breaking the law. The new laws break the law. She does not have to enter into an unwelcome contract. No one does. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, ever see that sign a place of business? Doesn't matter anyway, because we are talking about a contract here. Would a gay florist be forced to serve or cater a Westboro baptist function and be present, (this could be seen as a violation of torture or indentured servitude law in some eyes ). Forcing a florist to cater a wedding is a violation of pre existing contract laws, personal liberty and plain common sense, regardless of the florist motivation.

      Delete
  21. This is rape!
    By a government with an Anti-CHRISTian stance. No one can force a citizen into an unwelcome business contract or any contract for that matter. What next? Forced marriages. This is a blatant violation of the common law. My fellow CITIZENS you have a right to refuse service to anyone! You do not have to give a reason! You have every right under the common law, NOT to enter into a contract! And you shall plead the fifth if asked why.

    -For those who shall argue-
    Ignoramuses without understanding of law. You need to study contracts under the common law. While you are at it, research why a law can not be created that will violate existing law.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.