The Christian Florist Who Refused To Provide Flowers for a Gay Wedding Loses Badly in Court
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/02/17/the-christian-florist-who-refused-to-provide-flowers-for-a-gay-wedding-loses-badly-in-court/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=361
Years after Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, refused to do business with a gay couple wanting to get married because of her Christian beliefs, the state’s Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against her:
The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state’s antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
…
Stutzman argued that she was exercising her First Amendment rights. But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
“As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said.
Nor would her Christianity be a legitimate excuse for refusing to sell flowers to a black customer or a interracial couple. If you own a public business, you have to play by the same rules as everybody else. Your religious beliefs don’t give you a license to discriminate.
Stutzman’s lawyers disagree and say they’ll ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the case. Given the current makeup of the Court, however, even if they were to take up this case, overturning the ruling would be a long shot.
In the meantime, her other allies are still treating her like a Christian martyr. As if she would’ve suffered some great loss by providing flowers for a gay wedding.
Groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State were pleased with the ruling.
Stutzman’s main argument was that her flower arrangements were “expressive conduct” — speech, in First Amendment terms — and that she shouldn’t have to communicate a message with her flowers that she doesn’t believe in. But the court rightly rejected this argument, ruling that providing “flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding.”
The florist also proposed that what she called “artistic” services (like hers) be exempted from the anti-discrimination law. The court quickly dismissed this bad idea, quoting from AU’s brief: Such an arrangement, the court noted, would create an unworkable “two-tiered system” where a “dime-store lunch counter would be required to serve interracial couples but an upscale bistro could turn them away.”
While this case may be over, barring the U.S. Supreme Court doing something drastic, keep in mind that Donald Trump is considering an Executive Order that would allow religious people to discriminate without penalty. It’s similar to the law Gov. Mike Pence signed in Indiana before a public outcry forced him to pull it back. While Trump reported delayed signing such an Order a few weeks ago, with this decision, he may be pressured into giving the thumbs up to faith-based bigotry.
In the meantime, I guess we can all send thoughts and prayers to Alliance Defending Freedom in this difficult time. It’s the least we can do before we throw a giant party in favor of civil rights.
Years after Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, refused to do business with a gay couple wanting to get married because of her Christian beliefs, the state’s Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against her:
The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state’s antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
…
Stutzman argued that she was exercising her First Amendment rights. But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
“As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said.
Nor would her Christianity be a legitimate excuse for refusing to sell flowers to a black customer or a interracial couple. If you own a public business, you have to play by the same rules as everybody else. Your religious beliefs don’t give you a license to discriminate.
Stutzman’s lawyers disagree and say they’ll ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the case. Given the current makeup of the Court, however, even if they were to take up this case, overturning the ruling would be a long shot.
In the meantime, her other allies are still treating her like a Christian martyr. As if she would’ve suffered some great loss by providing flowers for a gay wedding.
Groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State were pleased with the ruling.
Stutzman’s main argument was that her flower arrangements were “expressive conduct” — speech, in First Amendment terms — and that she shouldn’t have to communicate a message with her flowers that she doesn’t believe in. But the court rightly rejected this argument, ruling that providing “flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding.”
The florist also proposed that what she called “artistic” services (like hers) be exempted from the anti-discrimination law. The court quickly dismissed this bad idea, quoting from AU’s brief: Such an arrangement, the court noted, would create an unworkable “two-tiered system” where a “dime-store lunch counter would be required to serve interracial couples but an upscale bistro could turn them away.”
While this case may be over, barring the U.S. Supreme Court doing something drastic, keep in mind that Donald Trump is considering an Executive Order that would allow religious people to discriminate without penalty. It’s similar to the law Gov. Mike Pence signed in Indiana before a public outcry forced him to pull it back. While Trump reported delayed signing such an Order a few weeks ago, with this decision, he may be pressured into giving the thumbs up to faith-based bigotry.
In the meantime, I guess we can all send thoughts and prayers to Alliance Defending Freedom in this difficult time. It’s the least we can do before we throw a giant party in favor of civil rights.
Tags
Who is online
118 visitors
The court's opinion makes perfect sense.
It was a foregone conclusion, (and they knew it when they started it) that's what happens when you elect 9 hard liberal justices in a hard liberal state. Any fool that follows the WA State Supreme court knows how they are going to decide the case even before the arguments are given. Most conservative lawyers don't even bother appealing anymore.....
That case is headed to the US supreme Court. May take ten years to get there but that is where it is headed
I doubt that the US Supreme Court will ever decide to take it. The lower court ruling is solid.
It is only solid if you believe that the state is the supreme authority on what a person can and cannot believe in.
The state thinks that unbridled discrimination against entire demographics is wrong. That's not such an extreme concept.
Really?
What about that christian demographic? they don't have any right to their beliefs? So I guess that you don't think Jews have any such rights either, or what about those Muslims.....
Oh I remember, those are demographic that don't matter to you.
Yes, such an extreme concept..... hundreds of millions of people don't matter
What you so neatly wish to brush under the rug, is that most Christians are on the side of the courts. It's only a small fraction of Christians that want to behave like bigots and cry about their freedoms being trampled.
Really?
Most christians are on the side of the courts. You have any proof of that claim?
And you didn't address the jews and muslims beliefs either. Why limit yourself to only the Christians. I'm sure most of them are on the side of the courts also right?
No, the only bigotry on display here is yours. Your anti christian bigotry.
It's common sense, moron. This is obvious to non-Libertarians. Your ilk wants to have the ultimate latitude in freedoms, but can't even follow such ridiculousness to its logical conclusions. In your perfect world, anyone can just create their own religion to protect their right to discriminate against anyone they please.
And yes - there is an enormous contingent of US Christians who have no problem with homosexuality. They are the ones with thinking brains, and that can recognize that if discrimination against gays can be justified with the Bible, then so must there be discrimination against everything the Bible condemns and no discrimination against that which it condones. You don't get to use the Bible as a standard, and then pick and choose what to agree with and what to disagree with. You want to condemn homosexuality, then you need to condemn divorce and condone plural marriage too.
For a person that hasn't a clue about what a libertarian is, your calling me a moron. {chuckle} I have stated numerous times I have no problem with homosexuality, Libertarianism stands for what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my business.
Typical, refusal to recognize your own shortcomings, that proverbial log in your own eye causes you to resort to insults.
The supreme capitulation when you have nothing left and are exposed......
Your anti-christian rant to deflect attention away from your own bigotry not withstanding
NWM, you have been exposed countless times here for having barely any idea what you're talking about. Your idea of libertarian is whatever floats around in your empty noggin on any given day, and it clearly is in direct contradiction with your fellow libertarians on this site.
Well, thankfully I have it on good authority that most think otherwise, it is only those that can't keep a cohesive debate going that think like you do.
And there aren't that many of you here. (I can count them on one hand without using all my fingers on that hand)
Defining 'libertarian' is like defining the radius of a square.
The definition of Libertarian is so simple it escapes you...
Yet you can't even put it into words.
So liberal judges in a liberal state cannot render a correct decision based on the law?
What about conservative judges in a conservative state, are they unable to render a correct decision based on the law?
Sometimes yes. Conservative judges are not immune to thinking with blinders also.
The decision is flawed to the extent that it equates a sexual perversion with an immutable chacteristic like race and gender. People have the right to freedom of association and freedom of speech where they can choose the ideas and behavior that they want to promote. However, governments are generally prohibited from discriminating based on race, gender, and religion. What's happened is that people who provide business services are being treated like governments and losing some of their rights to free association and full expression of their religious beliefs. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If businesses can discriminate, then perhaps those who are discriminated against should not have to pay for police and fire department services that protect the business.
It seems to me that business owners are still free to express their revulsion at the idea of a same sex marriage and, if they choose, post biblical passages that proclaim homosexuality to be an abomination before God. The gay couple gets the service and the owner gets to rant about how revolting they are. It's a win win.
"The decision is flawed to the extent that it equates a sexual perversion with an immutable chacteristic like race and gender."
Lol - who are you to define sexual perversion? For all you know, your heterosexual neighbors dress up in cow costumes, suck each other's udders, and finish with him taking in the can by her strap-on. For all the rest of us know, you and your wife engage in even grander sexual perversions.
Lol - who are you to define sexual perversion? . . .
Said as you cast your vote for Bruce Jenner to be woman of the year.
The florist could run her business as a private club, giving memberships to persons who share her beliefs and not to those who don't. Then she is not running a public business having to comply with laws that conflict with her religious views.
Problem with that Buzz is the Bakery business model, it is almost completely dependent on walk in business. Cake decorating is a service provided by the bakery, not it's primary focus.
Even walk-in trade could be asked to join the private club. Pay 1 cent for a membership card. If the customer asks for a product that offends the owner's beliefs, one of the rules of the club is that the owner can withdraw the membership, and only members are entitled to purchase the product.
In my estimation, that would draw way more attention to their bigotry, and would send regulars to the less bigoted competition.
I guess it depends on what's more important to the store owner. It seems to me that there are enough bigoted people in the USA (if not the world) that her business would not suffer. For every person repulsed by the concept, there's probably another who would go out of their way to support it.
I'm not endorsing what she did, I'm just making a point.
In my estimation, that would draw way more attention to their bigotry, and would send regulars to the less bigoted competition.
I agree Hal and then how would they get a Liberal Boycott to boost their business? Better to be available to the public for Liberal Boycotts, the marketing strategy of successful business owners!!!
I hear Chick Fil A is doing wonderfully.
"In my estimation, that would draw way more attention to their bigotry, and would send regulars to the less bigoted competition."
This is true of most thinking individuals but for some reason liberals seem to want to put everyone out of business that does not agree with them rather than taking their business elsewhere.
COME ON L I B E R A L S ......... HURT US SOME MORE!!!!!! WE'RE LOVING IT!!!! ANYTIME LIBERALS WANTS TO HURT YOU, LET THEM!!!!! A LIBERAL BOYCOTT IS THE BEST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO YOUR BUSINESS!!!!
And this was by February last year. After this, I bet they do a Chick fil A on them, don't you?
Supporters Raise More Than $94,000 For Florist Who Refused To Sell Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding
Thousands of dollars have been raised for a Washington florist after she was fined $1,000 for refusing to provide flowers for a gay couple’s wedding.
Supporters of Barronelle Stutzman, a 70-year-old florist in Richland, Washington, have donated more than $94,000 to a GoFundMe campaign that seeks “to protect Barronelle and her livelihood.”
MAKE YOUR DONATION HERE!!!
That supports my theory that she could do better as a private club than as a publc business.
ANYTIME LIBERALS WANTS
Oh my, how am I going to live with that? And I had a few minutes to correct it!!!!! I forgot to say I saw it on TV last night!!!
"ANYTIME LIBERALS WANTS TO HURT YOU..."
Don't feel bad about that, Six. Gollum in Lord of the Rings talked like that, and I think Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars did as well.
Lol, 94k isn't even going to cover their legal bills.
The legal bills are already covered.
You really don't know that much do you...
Gotta love it!
Who cares? Sorry you people are losing sleep over this. Richland is in the deep red part of the state. The tri-cities area is often referred to as the arm pit of WA. The only people who live there are ones who have to for work, or are too stupid to move.
3/4th of the state is red.
Well we know all about you Seattle elites who spend 12 million dollars to paint the crosswalks in rainbow colors....
And that is each intersection. You have an entire neighborhood done up that way.....
Not like there aren't blue tarp cities all over the place up there, there isn't enough cops to police the city besides they are under orders to not do their jobs. and now the Mayor is trying to raise taxes on sodapop by 100% to pay for the homeless that he brought into the city.
Seattle, a perfect example of how NOT to run a city... (unless you like needles, condoms and junkie thugs all over your streets)
I hear you can't walk 10 feet without seeing someone shooting up heroin in Seattle. Now that's sad.
I'm sure it is not that way everywhere in Seattle. Nothing like a portrait of shooting up beside Lenin!!!!
Well they do make sure to keep it out of the rich liberal neighborhoods....
No tent cities on Mercer Island...
Well, Detroit is their role model.......
1)..,I agree. I have to go to Seattle for business a couple times a year. That's 2 times too many for me! I live 120 miles north of Seattle. Unfortunately, every time the King Co. executive farts, we smell the wind up here. Good thing I am not taxed for the Metro Transit System, like Pierce and Snohomish counties are. I am more than willing to pay taxes for Skagit Co., where I live, and whose goods and services I use and support.
2)... Every state has towns and cities that are like Seattle, meccas for homeless, poor, and those addicted to drugs. Small towns in New England, Atlanta, L.A., Houston, Miami, etc. So your premise Seattle is so bad, or worse than any other town in any other state is pure bullshit.
3)... Don't like WA? Stay away, move away, boycott the whole state, I don't care. By my count, there are 49 other states, 50 if you count the non-existing fairyland of Jefferson, that I would never live in, and about 20 of those I wouldn't even want to visit.
But yet you keep voting for more of it....
Cities like Seattle become meccas for such when the government give them everything they need to be the dregs they choose to be. Why do you think it is called Freeattle?
More power to ya...
But there is a backlash coming with the new rounds of tax increases....
Wow, this article is bringing in all the conservative snowflakes!
This is a warning to all involved in the name calling here. Knock it off or I will lock down this article.
OK. That is your job/priviledge, But please point out the offense/offenders before you do.
Don,
I wasn't talking to you in particular. It's pretty obvious who I am talking about, when you read through the comments...
and no snowflake is not what I am referring to, although it is obnoxious.
Please tell me that that does not include "snowflake". It's the most popular term of NT conservatives.
The backlashes and tax increases will come from the feds (republican controlled congress), or the Eastern part of the State where people like Kathy McMorris Rodgers get farm subsidies from the federal Govt., and haven't farmed dogshit in 25 yrs. How about that Constantine asshole from there who failed at running for Governor, a few years ago. $500,000 from farm subsidies from the feds, and he did not even own a farm?
Get this through your head, WA is a DONAR state! If all states were, the federal budget could be cut by trillions! Taker states are basically every one below the Mason-Dixon line! Correct me if I am wrong.
Hello it was the Republicans that were fighting the farm bill.
Depends on how you define a taker state.
one point that comes to mind is the basis they used to challenge the muslim travel ban,
The states would be hurt by the loss of revenue to the colleges and universities from all the out of state students receiving federal assistance at out of state rates...
Now tell me again about being a donor state? That was their whole argument, thankfully for them the 9th didn't have to reach that argument.
EVERY single state is a taker state, in one form or another. It is how the feds get their little creepy hands into all the stuff they aren't supposed to by the constitution.
You want the feds money you have to follow the feds rules.... And WA is famous for taking federal money...
Of course. The feds (republicans) finally realized the money pit/well payoffs from absentee/ghost farmers had dried up. And they were coming under increased scrutiny from
congress. Put their money into the Medical/Pharma/Insurance conspiracy to get every single American hooked on some kind of prescription pill from birth. And then charge the crap out of everyone who needed life saving drugs.
I realize that all democrats have the eternal halo, and nothing good comes out of anything unless a democrat had a hand in it...
The rest of us are just greedy bastards looking to line our pockets at the expense of all the poor little democrats....
You got any other ideological lines to run?
NWM.... Of course WA is a taker state from the Feds. See, Whidbey Island Naval Base, Nuclear Poser Plant at Richmond, The Army/Air Force Base at Tacoma, and hundreds of thousand of miles of National Parks and National Wilderness areas to name a few. But all these places generate a tremendous income, and taxes to the state by providing goods and services to those who come here and live here. Hell, how many military installation does VA have, or FL, or TX and every one takes in more per capita than WA. And FL and TX refused the ACA option, and we are ALL paying for that!
The 9th District Court venue includes several states, not just WA. The decisions of which are not even close to the subject being discussed. As an aside to you though, if all the undocumented aliens in Skagit County were deported, the agriculture economy of the county would collapse. Would you want to pick strawberries for $20.00 a day?
Ah brother, are we deflecting to other issues?
WE probably are never going to agree on much of anything except not wanting to be anywhere near Seattle for any reason.
And no, there aren't too many Americans willing to be fruit pickers at any price. But does that mean we just throw the laws out the window?
I don't know where the middle ground is here. I doubt anyone does....
All I do know is it can't stay the way it has been. Something has to change and it won't be all the way either of us think it should be....
But repeating the failures of the past does not help solving anything today and both establishment parties have been nothing but failures over the last 24 years.
Definitely time for a change.
Gotta go peoples. Keep commenting, I'll be back. It's just that I have stuff to do today. Enjoyed the discussions. See you later. If I offended anyone unnecessarily, feel free never to comment on anything I ever post in the future.
I'm sure she has received a lot more than that Hal. That was over a year ago and after this with 100's going out to support her at the courthouse and the publicity, I'm sure she will receive a bundle more. We've just begun to fight the Radical Left and you haven't seen anything yet.....
Good for them. They will still be in the wrong.