Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is suing Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, after she refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding. I have been writing about the tension between free exercise rights and anti-discrimination laws — a subject that I discussed at the conference this week at the Utah Valley University’s Center for Constitutional Studies. This is now an issue that is arising with greater regularity, including conflicts over wedding cakes and other items.
Ferguson is acting under provisions of the state’s Consumer Protection Act that bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and is seeking an injunction requiring the florist to comply with the law. He is also demanding a fine of $2,000 for each violation.
The case involves the refusal to serve customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman insists that her religion barred such work. She described the scene: “He [Ingersoll] said he decided to get married and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.”
However, the Attorney General says that the standard is clear: “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.” Advocates of such enforcement note that we long ago stopped businesses from refusing to serve people due to their race and that this is merely an alternative form of discrimination.
Recently, a same-sex couple sued over an Oregon bakery’s refusal to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
The question is whether anti-discrimination laws are cutting into free exercise and first amendment rights for religious individuals, particularly those who believe that they are engaged in a form of expression or art in the preparation of flowers or cakes. These types of expressive acts may be distinguishable from other public accommodation cases like hotels or restaurants. Even though the same religious objections can be made by an evangelical Christian hotel owner, the flower and cake makers can claim that they are engaged in a more expressive form of product. It is, in my view, a difficult question because I do not see how anti-discrimination laws could not be used to negate a wide array of expressive activities.
I have long been a critic of the Bob Jones line of cases on tax exemption. I have long held the view that we took the wrong path in dealing with not-for-profit organizations, particularly in such cases as Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). We need to re-examine how anti-discrimination laws are encroaching upon religious organizations to give free exercise more breathing space in our society — a position I discussed in a book with other authors.
I find these more recent cases more difficult than the tax exemption cases. I find the analogy to race discrimination in public accommodation to be compelling. I have also been a long supporter of gay rights and same-sex marriage. However, I have serious reservations over the impact on free exercise in an area of core religious beliefs. What do you think?
Source: Seattle Times
It is a touchy subject, but I believe that if a business is serving the public, it must serve all of the public. They can keep their religion out of their business services. It is similar to the pharmacists not filling contraception prescriptions on religious beliefs. I agree with Mespo that Jesus would not care if they provide flowers or cakes or any services to a gay wedding. WWJD?
I agree with Scott that I wouldn´t want to give such a florist my business. It´s a big country and there are a lot of other florists, so just take your business elsewhere. If the florist´s heart isn´t into making the flower arrangements, they´ll turn out ugly anyway. I mean, seriously, who wants to eat a piece of wedding cake that was made by a baker who disapproved of your wedding?
Jews should not marry Catolics and so the flower shop would do society a favor and refuse to sell flowers to such a wedding. Dont want to employ none either. That ok for you commentors out there?
I own a Catolic hospital and no Baptists need show up in an ambulance at my ER door.
The flower shop should post a sign that says “No Bent Prongs Allowed– Our Prongs Must Be Straight And We Are Free To Express Our Views By Declining Service”.
I bet the owners dont have dogs either. I could see that the humpin thing would offend their xtiian sensibilities. Some say that Jesus was bent, but what do they know? It has been more than two thoussand years, you would think that the flower people would get over it. A lot of flower people are gay so perhaps they are in the closet where they can hump in private.
Just a dog’s perspective here. Some dogs need to poop on their sidewalk.
mespo:
if you dont like him how are you going to defend him properly? I dont think you should do business with people you dont want to do business with.
It is the corrollary of making a person use a particular business. And I think we all agree that isnt right.
Why would the customer want to use this person for flowers anyway? I know a great gay florist who I used for my wedding, give him the business. In fact, I have bought almost all of the flowers I have purchased over the ensuing years from him because he does a good job and charges a fair price. I am sure he has lost business because he is gay but those people were very shortsighted.
It doesnt make any sense to force a person to do business with someone they dont want to do business with.
You cannot legislate away the stupid in people. Just let them be stupid.
It is a “liberty” issue under the 14th Amendment. “Free exercise” terminology refers to the free exercise of religion prong of the First Amendment. The author of the article is placing the right of gay couples to marry upon the wrong prong of the wrong Constitutional provision. The denial of a liberty right by a right wing nut who professes a religious prohibition is a more cogent articulation of the issues. The flower prong guy needs to cut loose from the Sears Roebuck version of the bible.
If you are using state law as a corporate or llc, then you have no choice but to follow anti-discrimination laws since you are operating under state sanction. If it is a sole propriatorship and a personal business, then I think she has the right to refuse service. It is like the difference between a commercial motel and a multifamily building that rents.
I can’t figure out the connection between providing a service to all and remaining a religiously faithful person. If the idea is that by providing the service, one is supporting a sinful lifestyle, I wonder how far that goes? Does the woman ask whether alcohol will be served at events she provides flowers for? Does she somehow receive assurance that the women will be dressed modestly? What if the (straight) bride and groom have lived together before marriage?
What if she watches and enjoys a television program or movie, only to later find out that the lead actor is gay? Does she somehow ask for a refund? Does she stop watching that show?
Making accommodations for religious doctrines that are this ridiculous should not be sanctioned.
mespo,
What does the Book of Stu of Pid say about one woman laying down with another woman?
1. Bob Jone University or any religious school, university or other entity whose mission is to “spread the faith” doesn’t not deserve and should not receive a tax exemption at all. I should not be forced to subsidize such organizations with my tax dollars nor should they receive any privilege because of their religious status.
2. As tax exemptions are given to religions or faith based organizations they should not be permitted to engage in political activities or to break or ignore any generally applicable law including anti discrimination laws. Don’t want to follow the law? Give up your tax exemptions and any grants or other financial benefits you receive from the government and perhaps an exemption would be appropriate in some very narrow instances.
3. Discrimination is discrimination. A flower shop is not a church. It does not have a first amendment right it is not a person regardless of what CU says. Additionally many rabid segregationists argued that their racism was grounded in the faith. It worked for a long time and then we all said that isn’t acceptable in our secular society. You cannot discriminate in public accommodations. Don’t want to sell to the public don’t; but you are not permitted to discriminate if you remain in business.
4. To the lady at the flower shop: Jesus called and he said sell them the flowers. They are my brothers.
I just ran across this passage from the little-known but interesting Biblical text, the Book of Stu of Pid. Sadly it supports our flourist:
Verily I say unto you, if thou knowest of a man who lays down with another man, ye may not give unto him the lilies of the field or the rose of sharon. Nor may ye bring unto his house cakes of honey, nor may ye gaze upon his bed linens, or his servants, or even his tethered ass. Thus sayeth the Lord.
Food for thought.
Why would you want to give this florist your business anyway? All that would do is support the financial success of someone who is ignorant, closed minded, and intellectually enslaved to religious malarky. The solution is to give her less business and maybe her lack of success will wake her up to the fact that her religious beliefs are useless.
Bron:
“If a business dosent want to provide a service to someone they should not be forced to”
******************
An Alaskan Aleut walks into my office and wants representation. I really hate the show “Most Dangerous Catch” and don’t want to serve him. Am I justified in refusing him or charging him exorbitant rates solely because of his heritage?
“I find these more recent cases more difficult than the tax exemption cases. I find the analogy to race discrimination in public accommodation to be compelling. I have also been a long supporter of gay rights and same-sex marriage. However, I have serious reservations over the impact on free exercise in an area of core religious beliefs. What do you think?”
When our founders crafted the constitution they had difficult cases to deal with too, the major ones of course being a woman’s right to vote, and slavery.
There are various theories about why they let those two egregious human rights violations pass scrutiny.
One theory is that they realized the nation would not have formed but for allowing those two violations to be corrected at a later date.
If that theory is true, then they made an accurate calculation, because those felonious wrongs have been turned around to proceed in a more humane direction.
I would tend to say that in these difficult cases we must not go backwards, and must proceed forward cautiously, as they did.
However, since the nation is more mature now, no longer an infant concerning the concept of human rights without hypocrisy, equal application of the laws and non-discrimination issues should perhaps be handled with only one kid glove on.
Theres a reason why it was the FIRST amendment, no?
If a business dosent want to provide a service to someone they should not be forced to.
She should have just told him it will cost $20k and take 3 months and if he wants it in a week it will cost $30k. Problem solved and if the person says “no problem”, donate the fee to a local charity if your religious views prevent you from serving a customer.
It is kind of funny though, Jesus was all about serving others, a small business owner could learn something from His example.
In my opinion one of the hallmarks of a free society is free association, you cannot have a free society and force people to enter into a voluntary exchange.
If someone wants to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, sure why not? Just dont expect your business to grow and count me out as one of your patrons.
Stop it AY! That was funny.
Give the men their flowers. Their money is as green as anyone elses. I have it on good authority that Jesus doesn’t care who dellivered the flowers or who catered the dinner.
Guess there won’t be any nose gay bouquets today….