(Photo: ADF/Screengrab)Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, speaks as supporters rally around her in November 2016.
Posted on 07/17/2017 9:19:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
(Photo: ADF/Screengrab)Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, speaks as supporters rally around her in November 2016.
Barronelle Stutzman, also known as the "Christian grandmpa florist," is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal to reverse a Washington court's decision earlier this year that found her guilty of discrimination for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding.
The Associated Press reported on Sunday that lawyers for Stutzman are claiming that Washington's high court violated her First Amendment protection for artistic expression in its ruling in February.
Alliance Defending Freedom positioned in a post on Friday that Stutzman is taking her "last stand" at the Supreme Court.
"For more than four years, Barronelle has endured the litigation in this case with unwavering grace, humility, and faith — even as she faces losing everything she owns," ADF wrote.
"Now she will take her last stand before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to preserve her religious freedom and her right not to be forced to speak a message about marriage that violates her beliefs."
The Washington high court agreed with a 2015 Benton County Superior Court decision that fined the florist $1,001 and held her responsible for paying the thousands of dollars in legal fees incurred by Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed, the gay couple who sued her back in 2013.
Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, had served Ingersol for close to a decade, but declined to use her talents to create floral arrangements for his same-sex wedding, as it went against her religious beliefs.
In February, Associate Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud argued that the Washington Law against discrimination "does not infringe" on any of Stutzman's constitutional protections.
The decision sparked outrage among Christian conservatives, with David and Jason Benham, two conservative brothers who in 2014 lost out on a HGTV house-flipping show after voicing their stances on marriage and abortion, stating at the time:
"Today, religious liberty was dealt another devastating blow as the Washington state Supreme Court ruled against [72]-year-old florist Barronelle Stutzman. Now is the time to rally to her defense and support her."
Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, called it a "loss for every American."
"The government should not bully people into violating their conscience," Moore argued on Twitter.
"A [government] that can bully consciences into participating and celebrating what the conscience finds immoral is a [government] that can do *anything.*"
ADF argued that it's "hardly disputed that artistic expression, such as floral art, is speech."
It slammed the state for going after "a 72-year-old grandmother for everything she owns just because what she believes does not fall in line with the state's political agenda."
ADF positioned that the Washington high court's decision was "blatantly unconstitutional," and warned that all American citizens need to be concerned for their freedoms.
Yep
I defend the right of the business to refuse service to people that violate my religious beliefs.
However, I would not refuse it generically.
If the couple stipulates that the vows are not performed in a Christian church and I nor any of family members must be present for the ceremony - only to set it up - I would consent to provide the service.
Most flowers are bisexual. They won’t care. I would also be careful to take photos/videos of the floral arrangement once I was done setting them up so that later I could not be accused of lining them up to spell FAG or some such. I would also leave a small, tasteful stack of business cards which would contain a Bible verse on them.
This is never going to end is it? Wicked state for bullying this poor old lady. So sick of the freaks and queers setting the agenda.
The wife and I had a pretty bitter argument on this. I am so sick of how liberal the Christian church has come on this. She thinks we should love the poor people and thinks I am wrong to think that these people are abominations. In her mind a “sin is a sin”. I just can’t get past what abominations these people are, and am I not convinced this is about love.
Was not the sin of Sodom called out BEFORE the Ten Commandments were given?
An so we of America continue to reap the rewards of repealing the laws that kept the sodomites contained for a thousand years. We even allowed them to change the language to call themselves gay, to call normal people straight, to call same-sex rape of children NAMBLA, to spread veneral diseases in unchecked fashion to the innocent, and to parade themselves on TV as something other than disgusting degenerates. The queers are in a war with Christianity in tandem with the Muslims and they are winning. This is a single case and will not set a precedent even if this Christian lady wins.
Queers, with the help of homowood and the old media have redefined the language. 90% of freepers use the queer lingo. The sodomites have even taken over education of children. And, bit by bit, they are killing Christianity.
>
In February, Associate Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud argued that the Washington Law against discrimination “does not infringe” on any of Stutzman’s constitutional protections.
>
She and her lawyer should have taken it to the extreme to show the stupidity of the law and the court, by asking during opening.
One cannot discriminate vs. food choices, which are ‘legal’ to order take-out? Would it still be illegal if, say, one was gluten intolerant and thus could not eat Italian??
Movies to watch? Books to read? Parts of town to ‘visit’? Whom to vote for?
ALL of these, and more, are discrimination. Yet, one cannot self-determine whom to work ‘for’? Which contract(s)?
I would have asked the court/judges for a list of ‘approved’ activities/choices.
>
Remember this business sign: We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE. One could add ‘for any or no reason’ but it ain’t necessary. That’s the way it should be and would be in a sane, rational world. Government and the courts need to return to and stay within the strict confines of the Constitution.
>
The camels’ nose been LONG under the tent....
The only reason the sign was needed in the 1st place was *GOVT* intrusion via ‘Civil Rights Act’ and the like. Biz. owners were turned into ‘public accommodations’ and owners stripped of their 1st A. Rights to create ‘rights’ that the govt could bestow and enforce.
A Free people don’t need such signs; they also don’t need a govt ‘list’ of whom/when/where/how they MAY ‘discriminate’.
>
Framing it as a speech issue, being compelled to use your artistic talent for a purpise you do not support, has a better chance. The state compelling speech is likely to be more alarming if SCOTUS were to support it.
>
So, let’s wrap it in an enigma, within a puzzle, within....while neglecting the elephant in the room.
Sorry, but it’s cases like this that ALLOW the court(s) to get away w/ the crap they do: They never rule based on the issue(s)
Gun laws allowed because of X, Y, Z...NEVER touch ‘infringed’.
Welfare/taxes...NEVER touch A1S8, 5th or 13th.
Just another ‘out’ for the courts and a revolving door for the lawyers\judges.
>
To say otherwise leads to the absurd where the state can force the People to purchase from a special class of citizens or businesses. That would turn the model of free markets on it’s head and would be directly opposed to the founder’s intent.
I believe this argument should be made before SCOTUS as well.
>
This absurdity HAS been brought up before the Court and deemed Constitutional...a la O’Care.
Proof that homosexuals are trying to harass Christians out of existence, but muslims refuse the same demands and no one really cares: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
“Aren’t you also miffed that the word “gay” was stolen?...”
And that the image of a rainbow has been forever besmirched.
If we can't opt out because we do not wish to do it then the left will find a work around for any other "excuse."
“Oh, your ‘wedding’ was today? So sorry!”
Yes.
Her lawyer wants to win her case. If this is in his opinion the best course he takes it.
>
Her lawyer wants to win her case. If this is in his opinion the best course he takes it.
>
“...First Amendment protection for artistic expression...”. *Pffft* He wanted to WIN, he’d be arguing the point, not some left-field tangent.
But, you’re right. HER lawyer, his plan, theirs to lose....should SCOTUS even take the case. I’m not holding my breath for either; this country, and its govt, are too far gone to hope otherwise. Here, we’re just witnessing the picking of the bones.
It is absolute madness that someone can sue you for not wanting to attend and work your event if they don’t want to go there. This can never be accepted, no matter what a Court may rule. If she doesn’t want to participate in a same-sex “wedding”, she doesn’t have to - and they don’t have to give her their money - no business transaction. That’s it. You don’t have a “right” to anyone’s private services and to force another human being to participate in an event they don’t agree with. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.