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.
Thank you for your succinct legal explanation of why SCOTUS ruled this way.
Thanks for the info. I was wondering about the “friendly” homosexual customer.
That's not necessarily the case. If a person claims to be a Christian, they are enjoined to love their neighbors, but avoid sin and participating in sin. The woman in this case had made flower arrangements for this man for years, so her liking him was well established. But she did not want to participate in a wedding that violated the Biblical model.
I agree with you on this but I suggest the sign should be more specific on who the business chooses not to serve. Remove all question ahead of time.
Gorsuch (along with Roberts) rewrote the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and one’s chosen gender. He absolutely cannot be trusted in any matter dealing with the radical lgbtq agenda. He is likely to be Kennedy 2.0 on that front.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Gorsuch wanted to take the case because he wanted to issue a decisive, definitive, expansive “bake the cake bigot” decision.
Kavanaugh and ACB are, like Gorsuch and Roberts, two more bad picks in a long list of bad Republican Sup Court appointments.
There is never going to be a conservative majority in the Sup Court. Considering the age of Thomas and Alito, we’ll be lucky if we ever get back to three solid conservatives.
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.