Posted on 07/07/2021 6:13:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Can Barronelle Stutzman, a Christian, run her flower shop in keeping with her faith?
The Supreme Court -- with determinative votes cast by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh -- has effectively decided she cannot.
"My faith is a part of every aspect of my life," Stutzman said in a sworn statement presented seven years ago in a Washington state court. "I believe that God requires me to apply my faith in all that I do whether that is in my personal life or my business."
"In the mid-1970s, I began learning the art of floral design and creation at my mother's floral shop in Connell," she said. "In 1989, my mom was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. So I purchased the business from my mom in 1996 and became the sole owner of Arlene's Flowers, where I continue to design floral arrangements."
Over the years, Stutzman employed gay workers and did floral design work for gay customers -- without discriminating in any way.
Then, one long-time customer, Robert Ingersoll, asked her to do the floral work for his wedding to another man.
"I tried to respond in the most sensitive way I knew how," she told the court. "I gently took his hand, looked him in the eye, and told him that I could not do his wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ."
"I believe that God created two distinct genders, male and female, in His image and the Bible defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman as ordained by God," she said. "This is also the doctrine of my Southern Baptist faith."
"Participating in a same-sex wedding ceremony in the way Rob requested would violate my conscience, and I would be held accountable to the Lord for this," she concluded. "I also believe that if I participated in a same-sex wedding ceremony in the way Rob requested, others would see my actions as an endorsement of the ceremony."
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued Stutzman, arguing she had violated a state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Stutzman fought back. She argued that the Constitution prevented the government from forcing her to act against her faith or to express a message she did not wish to express.
That, of course, is exactly what the government would be doing if it forced her to create custom floral arrangements specifically intended to celebrate a same-sex marriage.
The First Amendment says in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment imposes this restriction on state governments.
Yet, in recent decades, the Supreme Court has issued opinions that concede to the government a power to restrict the free exercise of religion or compel an individual to act against his religion.
In the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith, the question was whether Oregon could deny unemployment compensation to two workers who had been fired after they ingested peyote "for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church."
The court ruled 6 to 3 against these members of the Native American Church. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority "that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law prescribes (or proscribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
In the 2018 case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the question was whether the state could force a baker to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, delivering a message that violated his religious beliefs.
The court ruled 7 to 2 for the baker -- but not in defense of his freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion. Instead, using the argument in Smith, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued for the court that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had showed "hostility" to the baker's religion and was therefore not "neutral" in it is application of the law that restricted his free exercise of religion.
"The Court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws," Kennedy wrote. "Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach."
"Participating in a same-sex wedding ceremony in the way Rob requested would violate my conscience, and I would be held accountable to the Lord for this," she concluded. "I also believe that if I participated in a same-sex wedding ceremony in the way Rob requested, others would see my actions as an endorsement of the ceremony."
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued Stutzman, arguing she had violated a state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Stutzman fought back. She argued that the Constitution prevented the government from forcing her to act against her faith or to express a message she did not wish to express.
That, of course, is exactly what the government would be doing if it forced her to create custom floral arrangements specifically intended to celebrate a same-sex marriage.
The First Amendment says in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment imposes this restriction on state governments.
Yet, in recent decades, the Supreme Court has issued opinions that concede to the government a power to restrict the free exercise of religion or compel an individual to act against his religion.
In the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith, the question was whether Oregon could deny unemployment compensation to two workers who had been fired after they ingested peyote "for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church."
The court ruled 6 to 3 against these members of the Native American Church. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority "that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law prescribes (or proscribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
In the 2018 case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the question was whether the state could force a baker to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, delivering a message that violated his religious beliefs.
The court ruled 7 to 2 for the baker -- but not in defense of his freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion. Instead, using the argument in Smith, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued for the court that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had showed "hostility" to the baker's religion and was therefore not "neutral" in it is application of the law that restricted his free exercise of religion.
"The Court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws," Kennedy wrote. "Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach."
Barrett is the biggest surprise imo. I agree, the “dems do not need to increase their side”. Not necessary.
this article is really muddled, and this, from the end:
“In a vote reported Friday, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas did agree. But Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh did not.”
It’s so weird. I could have sworn that Scalia was not on the court anymore, but....who am I to judge this author?
And 3 Catholics I’m embarrassed to say.
JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, and with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins as to all but the first paragraph, concurring.
In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), this Court held that a neutral and generally applicable law typically does not violate the Free Exercise Clause—no matter how severely that law burdens religious exercise. Petitioners, their amici, schol- ars, and Justices of this Court have made serious argu- ments that Smith ought to be overruled. While history looms large in this debate, I find the historical record more silent than supportive on the question whether the found- ing generation understood the First Amendment to require religious exemptions from generally applicable laws in at least some circumstances. In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling. As a matter of text and structure, it is difficult to see why the Free Exercise Clause—lone among the First Amend- ment freedoms—offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.
Yet what should replace Smith? The prevailing assump- tion seems to be that strict scrutiny would apply whenever a neutral and generally applicable law burdens religious ex- ercise. But I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categor- ical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime, particularly when this Court’s reso- lution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rights—like speech and assem- bly—has been much more nuanced. There would be a num- ber of issues to work through if Smith were overruled. To name a few: Should entities like Catholic Social Services— which is an arm of the Catholic Church—be treated differ- ently than individuals? Cf. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lu- theran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012). Should there be a distinction between indirect and direct burdens on religious exercise? Cf. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599, 606–607 (1961) (plurality opinion). What forms of scrutiny should apply? Compare Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 403 (1963) (assessing whether government’s in- terest is “‘compelling’”), with Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437, 462 (1971) (assessing whether government’s in- terest is “substantial”). And if the answer is strict scrutiny, would pre-Smith cases rejecting free exercise challenges to garden-variety laws come out the same way? See Smith, 494 U. S., at 888–889.
We need not wrestle with these questions in this case, though, because the same standard applies regardless whether Smith stays or goes. A longstanding tenet of our free exercise jurisprudence—one that both pre-dates and survives Smith—is that a law burdening religious exercise must satisfy strict scrutiny if it gives government officials discretion to grant individualized exemptions. See id., at 884 (law not generally applicable “where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions” (citing Sherbert, 374 U. S., at 401, n. 4)); see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303–307 (1940) (subjecting statute to height- ened scrutiny because exemptions lay in discretion of gov- ernment official). As the Court’s opinion today explains, the government contract at issue provides for individualized ex- emptions from its nondiscrimination rule, thus triggering strict scrutiny. And all nine Justices agree that the City cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. I therefore see no reason to decide in this case whether Smith should be overruled, much less what should replace it. I join the Court’s opinion in full.
A Catholic from Notre Dame is like a pope from Argentina. That dipshit’s empty piece of paper at her confirmation was her copy of the constitution.
Barrett was a political pick and Kavanaugh stabs us in the back after we defended him.
really? I figured ACB had just enough “social worker” mentality to not do any good as a conservative judge.
I understand that the average reading comprehension skills in America today are on the 8th grade level, but try to read Barrett’s concurrence above. She makes clear that Smith should be overruled. The only question she has is what to replace it with.
The gay man should have taken his business to a floral shop that was far more accommodating - for his wedding cake too.
A Muslims flower shop and Muslim bakery.
“offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.”
Lightweight. How is forcing someone to do something against their will, not discrimination?
This idiot is the even worse than the other idiot Kavanaugh. Was she one of his all female clerk squad? Hunter Biden would like to have all female clerks too.
It should be replaced with nothing and you need to update your reading comprehension of the constitution. It’s all there. Not her idiotic ramblings.
My theory is that Roberts warned them that violent protesters would be at their home if they pissed off the Left.
You have to stop thinking in terms of denominations. (I understand it will be difficult to do.) If you think “Christian” instead of “Catholic”, it will make much more sense. Just because someone is Catholic doesn’t mean he’s a Christian. Just because someone is Methodist, Baptist, Church Of God, etc., doesn’t mean he’s a Christian.
A born-again Christian would decide correctly.
Why do we never hear about a Muslim bakery or flower shop in a similar situation? Why is it always a Christian establishment?
(rhetorical question)
Smith has been a problem for a long time.....all that said, and as much as we should want it to be overruled, this little opinion shows some of the difficulties....and this is mainstream conservative jurisprudence. The action for the citizen’s who are zealous for the free exercise is to strike down the Washington regime which violated this woman’s rights in the first place. Again, that is a mainstream conservative viewpoint....(and I do like that Kavanaugh and Barrett did not join in Breyer’s opening paragraph which reaches too far).
Everyone knows that this case was a setup. Justice Thomas was right when he called Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts gutless cowards.
Thanks for the moronic take. If Smith was replaced with “nothing” then explain how you deal with the Satanist who says sacrificing babies is part of his religion? Or the “Church of What’s Happening Now” when they say their tenants allow for public orgies?
Just stop. A Catholic is a Christian. I’m wearing a cross around my neck.
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.