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.
SCOTUS made the bed which the Christian florist is punished for not sleeping in, so its refusal to correct the wrongful punishment of said florist who obeyed God over man, is not surprising. When SCOTUS criminalized states refusing to recognize homosexual marriage, did they not surmise that this conflict would result?
Actually they all can refuse such things as enabling porn and potentially even censure such content by homosexuals, yet since homosexual relations are not considered immoral then such cannot be censured.
ETCM makes a great point....
Actually even though in the Masterpiece bakery case the baker refused to be complicit in recognizing homosexual marriage (by creating a special work for that express purpose), consistent with the Word of God as well as the CO state constitution at the time, SCOTUS would not send a clear message that the persecution of him was wrong, that a business cannot be forced to go against its conscience in a precise situation as this, but made it seem like the real problem was the antagonistic manner by which the state persecuted him.
SCOTUS made the bed which the Christian florist is punished for not sleeping in, so its refusal to correct the wrongful punishment of said florist who obeyed God over man, is not surprising.
perhaps there’s more dirt on Kavanaugh and Barrett....we shall see......big fat zero’s in my book....
Just do a SUCK ASS job! Make it ugly.
The state “Human Rights” commission wants to take her business and her house in fines and punishment. She is in her 70s.
I read that the man who asked for the cake was a longtime client and friend, and she explained very lovingly her reservations to him, and he understood. But it was his intended "husband" who, after he went home and told him, had the hissy fit and made a complaint to the state "Human Rights" commission, which of course is full of people with axes to grind; and the HRC went after her.
Uh, except for leading that decision that declared that the sex discrimination statute also covers "gender identity", which entitles the confused peenie pervs to go in the ladies' rooms.
So is Pelosi and Biden.
Dare we say it! The SC is as corrupt as the DOJ, FBI, IRS, DHS, CIA, ATF, Congress, Democrat Party, RINO Republicans.
I think 6 of the Justices are Catholic. What’s your point.
Most people miss the point that the declining wedding merchant isn’t enriching himself by his actions, which might be suspect, but is IMPOVERISHING himself by turning down business. What is it he has to gain, except a clean conscience?
Ah, ok, thanks for clearing that up.
The balancing of interests is really out of whack with these wedding cases. I understand those who hate Christianity and see stuff like this and trannies in bathrooms and such as a way to turn opinion again taking advantage of it, but what amazes me are the fools without such motivation that act like this is a big deal.
There are PLENTY of florists, cake artists, etc. that are willing to cater a same-sex wedding. Even in the reddest of states.
This isn’t the issue of an innkeeper denying a gay man entry during a blizzard or some extreme hypothetical like that. The “harm” inflicted on the gay couple is being made aware that some people don’t like them. That’s it. I’m sure they were already well aware of that fact, so big deal.
On the other side, you have someone being forced to violate their beliefs or go out of business. That’s not a small thing.
The Court could and should allow freedom of conscience in this area. But it won’t because it’s a bunch of cowards.
In fact, the only "liberal" Catholic justice in recent years was Sonia Sotomayor, but by her own admission she's only "Catholic" on paper and doesn't practice the faith or go to church, which makes her as "Catholic" as Bernie Sanders is "Jewish" and Jesse Ventura is "Protestant".
The USSC did NOT take the case. It has to go through the lower courts first. There was no decision.
Yeah, because we all know the writers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act had trannies in women's restrooms in mind when they wrote the law...
yep!
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.