Posted on 07/03/2021 5:04:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of a Christian florist from Washington state fined refusing to make a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding because she felt it went against her religious beliefs about marriage.
In doing so, the Washington Supreme Court ruling against the Christian florist remains intact. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch each said the court should have taken the case.
Though the case dates back to 2013, religious liberty legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom said the fight to defend Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington, for standing for her beliefs is not over.
“Barronelle Stutzman kindly served a gay customer for YEARS before declining to make art for a ceremony that's sacred in her religion. She was sued & persecuted for acting on deeply held beliefs,” ADF tweeted after Friday’s decision.
“SCOTUS' decision not to hear this case is disappointing –– but our fight isn't over,” ADF continued.
As a Southern Baptist, Stutzman denied making the floral arrangement for the wedding of Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed because she holds the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
In 2015, she was fined by a county court just over $1,000. She is liable to pay upwards of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled against Stutzman in February 2017. It argued she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws protecting based on sexual orientation when she refused to make floral arrangements for the same-sex wedding.
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Washington court’s 2017 decision in 2018, sending Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. Washington et al. back to the court for further consideration.
Citing the 7-2 ruling in favor of Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court asked the Washington high court to consider whether or not there was any animus against the florist’s religious beliefs.
In Phillips’ case, the court found the Colorado government showed hostility against the baker’s Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality.
The Washington court unanimously upheld its 2017 decision when it heard Stutzman’s case again in June 2019, contending that Stutzman discriminated based on sexual orientation.
“We, therefore, hold that the conduct for which Stutzman was cited and fined in this case — refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding — constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the [state law],” the ruling reads.
Stutzman was sued by the same-sex couple, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“After Curt and I were turned away from our local flower shop, we cancelled the plans for our dream wedding because we were afraid it would happen again,” Ingersoll said in a statement. "We had a small ceremony at home instead. We hope this decision sends a message to other LGBTQ people that no one should have to experience the hurt that we did.”
ACLU attorney Ria Tabacco Mar said that the court's decision "confirmed that LGBTQ people should receive equal service when they walk into a store."
"No one should walk into a store and have to wonder whether they will be turned away because of who they are," she said in a statement. "Preventing that kind of humiliation and hurt is exactly why we have nondiscrimination laws. Yet 60 percent of states still don’t have express protections for LGBTQ people like the kind in Washington State. Our work isn’t over yet.”
Kristen Waggoner, Stutzman's lawyer from ADF, called the court’s decision "tragic.
"[T]he critical work of protecting the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans must continue," Waggoner said, according to CNN. "No one should be forced to express a message or celebrate an event they disagree with."
Waggoner said the right to hold to religious beliefs is constitutionally protected.
“We are confident that the Supreme Court will eventually join those courts in affirming the constitutionally protected freedom of creative professionals to live and work consistently with their most deeply held beliefs,” she said, according to NBC News.
Six out of the nine justices, the majority of the court, were appointed by Republican presidents.
I was always suspicious of the constitutionalist credentials of Justice Kavanaugh, but I had such high hopes for Amy Coney Barrett ... she turned out to be the biggest disappointment of all, from her first decision on the November 2020 elections to this one.
Facebook and Twitter can have terms of service but bakers and florists can’t.
So if a floral shop refuses to serve a gay wedding, and the Supreme Court says it must, I get the tort.
But what’s the damage?
Does the shop have to pay for another shop to provide services? Makes no sense.
This is all bullcrap.
Stinking fekking cowards. So much for Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett’s originalist credentials.
Roberts needs a nice comfy pillow. Like the kind Scalia last had.
Bingo! Excellent point. Just raise your price for the sodomites, make them pay for their immorality.
I still maintain that the First Amendment argument is incorrect because there is too much interpretation around the idea of the exercise of religion. I think this entire argument should be around the 13th Amendment because forcing someone to work against his/her will is slavery/involuntary servitude. Make the ACLU defend slavery which is what they’re effectively doing.
In future just deliver dead...or soon to be dead...flowers to a perv “wedding”. When they complain apologize and offer a full refund. Problem solved.
Don’t give a Reason for denying them Service, JUST SAY NO
So in only three years is the court throwing out its decision in the Colorado baker case? With Trump’s new appointments being the ones who made the difference?
Excellent point!
Leave Amy Comey Traitor alone.
I agree, it should also be used against the Federal Reserve Corporation, forcing people to pay interest on money loaned into society that they are Forced by Law to Use, is an act of Involuntary Servitude, especially since the Interest can only be paid for by the blood and sweat of labor, for the Interest owed on the National Debt was NEVER CREATED and does NOT EXIST
“Facebook and Twitter can have terms of service but bakers and florists can’t.”
Excellent point.
Wiki:
On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Washington for further consideration in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.[26][27] On June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman again, finding no evidence of religious animus.[28][29] Stutzman’s attorneys once again requested the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case,[30][31] but certiorari was denied in July 2021.[32]
The Court is telling you to write a law protecting Americans from SJW and the Gay Mafia.
Since when did a state (or even federal) anti-discrimination law trump the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution?
This should have been a lay-up for Kavanaugh and Barrett.
CAtholics are usually not very conservative.
Our republic is so decrepit that flower arranging is a state and federal judicial matter.
Sorry, I have freedom of association. That includes business.
We’re circling around the drain while China accelerates its plans for our demise.
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.