Posted on 02/17/2017 10:26:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A Washington florist who refused to participate in a same-sex wedding lost a unanimous decision yesterday at the state Supreme Court. The 9-0 ruling rejected her claim to a First Amendment right to exercise her right to religious liberty in favor of the state’s anti-discrimination law. The next step for Barronelle Stutzman will be the US Supreme Court, as KIRO reported lat night:
The Associated Press has more details on the next steps. Stutzman’s legal counsel insists that the First Amendment allows for free exercise of religion, and that commerce does not limit it. The case will have some company on the Supreme Court’s list of cases pending a decision on review:
“It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will,” Stutzman’s attorney, Kristen Waggoner, wrote in a statement issued after the ruling. “Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”
It’s one of several lawsuits around the country — including some involving bakers — about whether businesses can refuse to provide services over causes they disagree with, or whether they must serve everyone equally.
A Colorado case involving a baker who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Lambda Legal. In 2014, the court declined to hear an appeal of a case out of New Mexico that went against a photographer who denied a same-sex couple service.
We’ve been tracking the case of Barronelle Stuztman for at least two years, and the situation remains largely the same. She’s still a small-business owner who knowing serves LGBT customers — including the plaintiffs in this case for several years — who does not want to participate in same-sex marriages. Stutzman doesn’t have a monopoly on the florist trade; there are plenty of other florists who can (and did, in the end) design custom floral spreads for the wedding in question. At this point, she stands to lose everything because of her belief that the First Amendment means that the free exercise of religion includes the right to decline to participate in ceremonies that go against her faith.
If the situation remains largely the same, perhaps the context of it has changed since Donald Trump won the election. Suddenly, artists from singers to designers have refused to work with Trump, his wife, and his inauguration over their political offense at his election. His daughter’s designer products have been removed from stores under protest by Trump’s political opponents. These involve the same First Amendment rights that Barronelle Stutzman makes for declining a business opportunity on the basis of her own conscience.
Government should not force the Barronelle Stutzmans out of business, unless we’re willing to do the same with the Sophie Theallats. The Supreme Court dodged this issue once; they need to take it up now. If they refuse, then Congress and the president need to address this infringement on free market and conscience rights in this term.
Yesterday, I spoke about this case with Kerri Kupec of Alliance Defending Freedom, which has provided legal counsel to Stutzman, on The Ed Morrissey Show. Kerry comes on about the 62-minute mark. Kupec explains why the next step has to be to the Supreme Court, and explains some of the background.
For later.
Attorney Waggoner needs to be more specific about constitutional guarantees imo.
More precisely, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A) they obligated themselves to respect the rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression in this and related cases.
”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.”
Patriots need to get Pres. Trump and USAG Sessions up to speed with the unconstitutional abridgement of enumerated constitutional rights by pro-LGBT activist states so that they can put a stop to the politically correct, pro-LGBT momentum that these states helped to foster, corrupt Congress’s refusal to exercise its 14A powers to legislatively strengthen the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens with religuous convictions also contributing to this momentum.
“14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
And speaking of the corrupt, uniparty Congress …
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
If it is outside of the United States, they will not care.
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.