By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
We previously wrote HERE of Richland, Washington Florist Baronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, who caused a row when she refused to provide her floral services for a gay wedding. Now, a Benton County Superior Court Judge ruled that she violated the state’s consumer protection act that bars discrimination against a protected class.
The legal action was brought by customer Robert Ingersoll and the Washington Attorney General’s Office.
Judge Alex Ekstom rejected Baronelle’s arguments that her actions were protected by free speech and religious freedom guarantees stating in part:
“For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”
Robert had been a customer of Arlene’s Flowers for several years prior to the incident in question. Baronelle was aware that he was gay and had a partner Curt Freed for whom he purchased flowers. When Washington statutorily provided for gay marriage in 2012, Robert asked Baronelle to make the wedding arrangement for him. But, Baronelle declined, putting her hand upon Robert’s and stating that “because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ”, she would not be able to do so—according to her statement in a deposition.
Curt and Robert sued. They cited the Washington Consumer Protection Act and its laws against discrimination. They supported by the Washington Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the State Attorney General who welcomed the Superior Court ruling.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a statement said:
“The law is clear: If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples.”
The state is seeking the two thousand dollar fine the statute provides.
The Alliance Defending Freedom organization announced the day after it would on behalf of Baronelle appeal the ruling. The alliance claimed that the ruling would bring financial ruin Baronelle and Arlene’s Flowers
By Darren Smith
Source: KOMO News
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Jesus, born a Jew, worked on the Sabbath…
… Did he go to hell for it?
There are some things greater than ourselves and compassion is one of those things. If you want to do business with people, sometimes you have to work WITH people.
Sometimes the law is taken literally and has in the shadows precedents that were laid down as a foundation not to be messed with. The separation of races in America, theoretically did no harm to blacks if next to a ‘Whites only’ water fountain was a ‘Blacks only ‘ water fountain. So, the foundation is being protected and sometimes to some it seems out there. The florist runs a business open to the public. If she wants to cherry pick her customers then she should lay that out for all to see.
If the 2nd amendment can be interpreted so loosely and all encompassing vis a vis sacred rights, allowing regulations to fall short of common sense, then why shouldn’t this law be applied just as loosely and all encompassing. One refers to equality. The other refers to the right to run around packing a 45, causing altercations, getting one’s butt kicked, killing the butt kicker, etc.
Some people find homosexuality repugnant. The law states that one shall not comport oneself based on those feelings. These two guys were given their rights, lost them, and now have them back again. Keep you religion and other fairy tales to your selves. She sells flowers not religious doctrine.
issac wrote: “Keep you religion and other fairy tales to your selves [sic].”
Forcing people to keep their religion to themselves is not an American value. That is why we have the First Amendment.
Someone made a great point the other day (can’t remember who). That the First Amendment doesn’t make a distinction between freedom of religion and freedom of worship.
In other words you not only have the freedom to chose which religion you want to follow, you ALSO have the freedom to worship as the dictates are of that religion. If people feel that their daily actions are a part of the active worship of their religious principles, those are protected as well. Like the worship, prayers of Muslims at set times of the day and kneeling facing Mecca, some people have worshipful activities that are part and parcel of their daily lives.
So….. if this woman feels that making a floral arrangement or baking a cake for an activity that she considers sinful would be breaking the rules or the worship of her religion, then she should be free.
Note: I am not especially religious…..so we needn’t get off onto that tactic and start name calling I am basically agnostic…..but do believe that forcing someone to do something against the tenets of their faith is definitely against the precepts of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Worship.
There is a strong network of websites that list gay owned and gay friendly businesses, w/ gay groups encouraging fellow gays to support them. I APPLAUD this positive action.
It is on the record the plaintiffs got involved w/ the florists affairs, trying to make a political/legal point. The florist wasn’t going around to gay weddings saying “You’re bad, no flowers for you[Soup Nazi voice].” There are unquestionably gay florists who would have loved to made the floral arrangements and use the business as an advertisement. This horseshit is going to backfire. It has already started. People like myself who are pretty tolerant are saying “BASTA.”
“Robert asked Baronelle to make the wedding arrangement for him”
That is without question “participation”
Would there be legal consequences if a florist provided “tired” flowers or if a baker provided a crummy cake? I don’t care who you marry. I don’t even care what you marry. But can an we please stop talking about what Jesus would do? 2000 years ago, active homosexuality was a sin. So it’s likely that Jesus would have said, “You are forgiven…..now go and sin no more.”
ranonoff
But but but
What would Jesus do? Is always an applicable question to ask before we get nasty or ugly. Especially when we say that Jesus told us it was against our religion to bake a cake (lol) 😉 😉
Although a controversial topic and contentious, this thread has been civil so far. Kudos to all. Always note when the drama starts, and who the cast of characters are.
I have some sympathy for those who stand on principle, even if I disagree with what that’s about. But one must also know that defending an unlawful position openly has its price. I’d say fine her per incident and save the big guns for felonious behavior.
laudyms wrote: “But one must also know that defending an unlawful position openly has its price. I’d say fine her per incident and save the big guns for felonious behavior.”
The law is a bad law. We should not defend bad laws. The law that calls for a fine is unconstitutional.
The argument of the Judge was a bad one. He argues that the law can bar illegal action, and that is true. You can’t have someone offering human sacrifice and claiming that he has that right because of his freedom of religion. However, in this case, it is not ACTION that is being barred, but INACTION. That is a huge difference that this judge cannot seem to see due to his pro-homosexual bias.
This grandmother knew these gay people for years and sold them flowers in the past. She did not discriminate against them. But when they wanted her to do the wedding flowers, she held his hand and declined from wanting to do it. They got another florist to do the flowers for them. I fail to see any harm here, except for the harm caused by the law and this Judge. I understand he is up for election this year. He has never won an election before, and I hope he doesn’t start winning elections now. You never know with the way Washington State votes. They probably love him now.
Happy, you can’t legislate morals. Whenever it is tried, it results in penalizing the other side in some way, and even then people go on believing whatever they choose to believe anyway. It becomes reverse-discrimination quickly. Government is supposed to protect people’s freedoms. Today it is being used not only protect one group from being harmed by another, but to actually bring harm to that other group. Government is a tool used to control people. Whether that tool is being used “correctly” depends upon who is using it, apparently.
Tyger
To live in a society so absurd you should have to in the first place is sad.
“All men are created equal” Unless they are deviant and turn into homos one week and bi the next. Are they hurting anyone? Well, no, but everyone knows they are pedophiles right — wrong —- pedophiles can like children of the same or opposite sex and it is a crime as it does hurt the child.
Yes, I am more moral than you are so I will use my “liberty” to not sell to you and it’s not my problem how you feel. Go down the street since it’s your offensive morals and Christ told me not to make you a cake……..
We are a Christian Nation right? What does that mean because I am confused.
Oh well, I guess if everyone was reasonable like you it would be a better world 😉
How about going to another florist? Are people really prepared to live with all the consequences of treating sexual orientation the same as being Black? And what about when sexual orientation is really sexual conduct? Like when someone decides to engage in homosexual conduct to claim membership in the protected class? If you think it won’t happen, you’re wrong.
Sexual orientation is NOT like race, religion or gender. Over a weekend you can become gay, or bisexual, or heterosexual. It’s not the normal case, but it does happen. There are women who were lesbians, and then suddenly are straight again. Lindsey Lohan, that actress who was hooked up with Ellen deGeneres. I’m sure there are gay men that are analogous. While I certainly don’t approve of discrimination because of someone’s sexual orientation, I’m not blind to the problems of converting it into a strict scrutiny or even medium scrutiny protected class.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Homosexuals have lied to us for years about how their deviant lifestyle does not affect the rest of us. Fining this florist for her not supporting gay marriage because of her religious beliefs is just plain wrong.
The Judge compares this to a case like the Supreme Court not forbidding the State to criminalize smoking hallucinatory drugs even if it is for religious reasons. Now the State decriminalizes the drugs and fines a woman who does not want to participate in an unnatural marriage for religious reasons. Our Judicial system is completely out of whack. Surely governmental collapse and revolution is just around the corner.
Obviously, Curt and Robert were within their legal rights to sue the florist. But just being legal doesn’t make it “right” any more than it was “right” for the florist to refuse to make a floral arrangement because of her religious beliefs. The boys could have simply gone on down the street to the next florist, or ordered their flowers online even easier. Instead, they chose to force their morals on the florist and cause her actual damages in the form of a monetary fine by spending much more time and energy going to the courts to sue her. This seems vindictive and revengeful to me, using the law as a weapon to bring about injury to someone who didn’t share their beliefs and values. They would have been even more unhappy if the florist had pleasantly taken their order and then “lost” it or “forgot” about it and no flowers arrived in time for their ceremony. They might have had legitimate grounds for suing the florist for breach of contract then, but the damage would already have been done. And that’s the sort of thing people will learn to do to avoid having a “protected class” use the laws against them. They will just keep their real intentions to themselves and take their chances they might have to deal with the laws of commerce and contracts instead. And I wonder, would the boys would be so eager to take their time going to court when it wasn’t based upon a conflict of morals and values?
Hey Tyger
If our society can’t play nice, then we need protected classes. Just my opinion. These guys are out to prove a point because this is a new thing and get legislation going in my view. You are seeing it as them trying to cause trouble. Gay’s are oversensitive about their sexuality. This is a given. That might not even be the right thing to say. I am sorry if I said that wrong to any gay reading this because I don’t mean offense.
The thing is everyone deserves a fair and equal shake at the cake you know?
How absurd is that.
Obama, the gay president made us make a cake for the gays boo hoo.
Why didn’t the florist just provide a bouquet of pansies
This case will be heard by the State Supreme Court of Washington and eventually in the federal appeals Court. I don’t see the US Supreme Court getting involved.
The only way the florist could win this case is if the florist business motto or charter specifically indicated that this is a Christian organization, therefore we do not do business with people who commit or involved in certain types of ‘sinful’ behavior (However, I am sure the florist provided flowers to ‘unbelievers’, ‘people who commit ‘adultery’, ‘fornicators’, blasphemy, idolatry, etc).
I don’t know how this florist will stay in business if they accept or use the Christian motto?
Seems to me that I could understand the court’s ruling if flowers were necessary for a wedding or perhaps they might be the only florist within a reasonable distance to provide such service. Otherwise, what is this thing that’s called LIBERTY that seemed so important back then in 1776 Philadelphia ?
Buckaroo – that’s kind of like cherry picking the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It’s like, I will take your joy away because I can make you feel in bondage to a principle I believe in by virtue of my religion and I will band together with all of my peers in doing so.
This happened with Black people and Women so I feel it’s the Liberty itself in question here of the Protected Class.
Live and let live.
Most Americans today believe that Messers Ingersoll and Freed have the right to live together and marry. We stood up for them regardless of our personal beliefs.
Messers Ingersoll and Freed should accord Ms. Stutzman the accommodation of her beliefs.
Seems to me that the plaintiffs want the very freedom that they refuse to accord others.
I disagree. I think Jesus Christ would have been fine with the wedding cake and pretty soon it would be anyone out of the norm whatever that might be. It is sad when there has to be protected classes of people.
Meet the New Totalitarians. This is how they roll…