Posted on 02/23/2015 7:38:22 AM PST by wagglebee
RICHLAND, WA, February 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Washington State Superior Court judge ruled this week that politicians have the power to restrict religious actions and expression.
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not.
Stutzman is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington. A business owner for nearly 40 years, she was sued twice for allegedly violating the state's "Consumer Protection Act," because she refused to furnish flowers for a homosexual “marriage” service. The Act denies business owners religious liberty when it comes to sexual orientation, regardless of the owner's sincerely held beliefs.
In his decision, Ekstrom said that the 2006 law is constitutional. "For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled.
He said that "in trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations," legislatures are allowed "to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory." Ekstrom ruled that this applies "even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."
The case goes back nearly two years ago, when Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed asked Stutzman to provide flower arrangements for their "marriage." Stutzman, who had an existing professional relationship with Ingersoll, said in a deposition that “I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ I couldn’t do that, couldn’t do his wedding."
The former customers are seeking $7.91 in damages, to cover the cost of driving to another floral shop, and Stutzman faces up to $2,000 in fines plus the cost of legal fees because of charges filed by the state of Washington.
"Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said when he filed charges nearly two years ago. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
Stutzman, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, has said she will appeal Ekstrom's decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is backing Ingersoll and Freed, declined to comment to LifeSiteNews.
In a public statement, the legal director for the secularist advocacy group's state chapter said that "religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or to harm others because of who they are. When gay people go to a business, they should be treated like anyone else and not be discriminated against."
However, conservative blogger Erick Erickson decried the decision, telling LifeSiteNews that "the judge should have allowed free expression of religion by allowing the florist to opt out, particularly since it was well established she would otherwise serve gay customers."
Erickson, who compared extreme gay rights activists to Islamic extremists in a post about Stutzman's case, also said that "states should allow Christians to opt out of having to provide goods and services to gay weddings."
Romans 1:..
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.
Lev 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination....
25‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.”
Here is her letter:
Attorney General Bob Ferguson
1125 Washington St. SE
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504
Re: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman
Dear Mr. Ferguson,
Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.
As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.
Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.
I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.
Sincerely,
Barronelle Stutzman
Available here: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersSettlementOfferResponse.pdf
I cannot say what I wish would happen to this judge.
Lots of good details here:
Just find a black caterer in that state and hire them to cater a Klan rally. How will this judge rule on that when they refuse?
To me there’s a difference between not selling an existing product to somebody because of some moral code vs forcing somebody to enter into a CONTRACT to perform labor.
Doing flowers or baking cakes requires labor and you’ve both agreed what is wanted by contract. These situations should be at the discretion of the person doing the labor. It is not like having an existing flower basket or a cake on display and not selling it to somebody because they’re black/gay/whatever.
This is just secular humanists mocking Christians and enjoying it.
“So as long as you leave your beliefs at the church door, you are okay?”
Meanwhile prayer space and foot washing stations are being provided in public building with taxpayer money to accommodate Muslim worship.
What kind of utterly worthless POS lacking in humanity do you have to be to sue a woman who for a decade provided kind and polite service to you just because she couldn’t support doing one thing for you on the basis of her religious beliefs, which they undoubtedly knew beforehand? They had offers from other florists to provide their flowers for their sodomite union, but no, they had to sue a woman who had provided wonderful customer service to them for over 10 years, because she couldn’t set aside her religious principles to help them “celebrate” their sodomy.
And then they don’t just sue her for a token amount, they set out to destroy her. It’s like they planned it.
I am seriously considering doing something of the kind, no matter how gruesome it would be to my reputation, only I couldn’t bring myself to do it do it to someone with whom I’ve done business long-term. It would be hard to do it to anyone just to make a point, except that coming from a Christian perspective, I’d probably lose anyway.
I don’t think the far left understands just how evil this is or how offensive this government demand is to decent people. No response to this judge’s actions would be excessive; this court order is an illegitimate use of government force to deny a woman her God-given rights.
I suppose I could do it just to make the point, and not sue for any money.
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.In a nutshell, the so-called "freedom of religion" is a phantom, it does not exist where government decides to impose a regulation.
Just like every other "freedom" and "right" in the constitution, each is only as meaningful as the public will put up with.
And the public will put up with all manner of government abuse - see Nazi Germany, all run under the law.
Actually, I think they know EXACTLY how evil and offensive it is and that's why they push it.
You are referring to faux "liberals" & faux "libertarians."
Real liberals, and certainly real libertarians, such as the Founding Fathers, are no more likely to support a Compulsion for Uniformity of thought or contractual action, than are Conservatives.
The Constitution did not look to a form of National Socialism, but to a Federation of culturally and theologically different States. The ACLU, despite its name, has been working for almost a century now, to undermine Religious Freedom. See Leftwing Word Games.
The right to do business or not do business with anyone, was once generally accepted among Americans. That right has been under a major attack from the Left, since the 1930s; and because of the smear tactics employed in that attack, most Conservatives, today, walk on egg shells, as it were, rather than directly attack it. Perhaps cases like this, where people are being forced to pretend that they accept an oxymoron that violates some of their most deeply held beliefs, will re-awake something of the spirit of a once far freer people.
William Flax
Serious question; the way this was argued to me was that should the florist
prevail, would that in some way be considered discrimination and if so would it then allow other businesses to discriminate against against other couples they might not `believe` in, such as inter-racial couples? I admit I was unprepared to argue the point.
Some guy went into a black dry-cleaning store wearing a Klan outfit and ask them to clean his robes. They had a hidden camera and got it on tape. Pretty funny...
Nothing there about "belief", is there judge? "Free exercise" is.
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.