THIS SIGN SHOULD SUFFICE AND THE LAW SHOULD HONOR IT
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.
RE: CAtholics are usually not very conservative.
Well, Thomas and Alito are Catholics. So was Scalia.
So, if i won’t bake an abortion celebration cake, then I’m liable?
Weird religious freedom in this country. It’s only free if government agree with my positions.
no reason a baker can’t have large posters and Bible quotes clarifying the issue of sodomy in his/her shop
yes this is a good point.
very sad for all of those independent providers walking into a LGBTQ landmine
Total abandonment by the court
Agree completely!
Gorsuch has turned out to be surprisingly solid. Kavanaugh and Barrett have been huge disappointments. Particularly Kavanaugh, as Trump and Republicans went to war for him. Now, he stabs us in the back. The “all female clerks” was a warning sign.
So disappointing.
Concur...A business can refuse the right to provide services on the basis of scheduling, work load etc. and for other reasons that do not bear on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability...Admittedly, not forthrightly standing up for one’s beliefs, as Ms Stutzman did, is distasteful and not possible for some. But, as for me, dealing with those trying to prove a point at my expense, while cramming their beliefs down my throat, is a no-go. I can be just as devious as those who want to use me as a scapegoat.
They tried to jump to the Supreme Court...rather than go through the state courts first...appeals etc...That’s why they didn’t take it. There was no ruling.
‘
Has Kavanaugh ever split from Roberts?
Ever?
The dirty work was done in the selection of names submitted to Trump.
I said Kavanaugh was going to do this.
With exception of 3 Justices, most gutless SC in History.
‘
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube did as they please.
Manchin said that Corporations will get behind the Voting Act (Scam) and when they do, it will be passed, and the SCOTUS will support.
He essentially said that big Corporations rule everything, with those comments.
I might have to reconsider if Christine Blasey Ford was right about him.
Nah. He’s a phoney, not a letcher.
But this case should never have happened in the first place. I read elsewhere that Stutzman talked to the people she refused to provide services for, explained her decision, and that they (supposedly) went away without so much as a complaint. Turns out they ran right to the nearest lawyer and betrayed her, suing her instead.
This case smells of a set up from the first day, just like the baker in Colorado. Religious liberty is under assault and the courts are aiding and abetting that assault. America is doomed.
See my tagline.
Not only have the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties divided the Senate, effectively giving activist justices immunity from being removed from office for ignoring the Constitution, but such justices are also arguably taking advantage of the following constitutional gridlock.
Not only is the post-17th Amendment ratification, Democratic-controlled Congress wrongly letting the Court get away with legislating politically correct, anti-Christian policy from the bench, as opposed to Congress doing its duty to remove activist justices, but Congress has likewise been ignoring its constitutional duties in the following way.
Congress has been stubbornly refusing to use its 14th Amendment powers to make penal laws to discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment protections of religious expression and free speech in the example of this thread.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The remedy for corrupt federal government that has allegedly been stolen from the people by Democratic elite vote-counting fraud...
Patriots need to primary candidates for federal and state offices who don't clearly promise to remove bad-apple judges and justices from the bench, and protect constitutionally enumerated rights from abridgment by the states.
You realize the ONLY two reliably conservative justices who DID want to hear the case (Alito and Thomas) are Catholic, right?
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.