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.
…over time, not less….
I predict this will end up like abortion has.
Rather than settle abortion as the ‘law of the land,’ it caused a festering and faction ing of the US.
Ignoring federalism made abortion a more contentious issue ofve time, not less.
Same with gay marriage. You can force people to do lots of things, even comply against their beliefs. But they will not believe in your demands.
And so the Democrats have created yet another fault line in the US.
davidm2575
Two points you made include wording that hints at issues you might spend a little more time with. The hijacking in regards to the law infers something illegal. Americans wanted and seem to still want a fractured system of government which allows for groups smaller than the entire citizenry, i.e. states, counties, etc to control certain aspects of their societies. At times this works and at times it does not work. Regarding the transfer of gay marriage validity from one state to another, this is one area where it does not work. This is simply part of the price paid for this sort of government. Hijacking says more about you.
Regarding your continuing reference to your religion’s supposed foundation for laws and behavior, it would seem that a true marriage would be one that involved the two people tying the knot, their immediate friends and family, and no one else directly. That your feelings for the ‘sanctity’ of marriage are poked when homosexuals get married says more about your stability than that of the institution of marriage.
This is an arena of laws and the convoluting intersections resulting from this unique American system of government and the changing times. Go back in history a little and stroll outside of your safety zone of religion.
let them marry, holy sh*t. For many of them it is sexual addiction, I am going to sit back, grab some popcorn and watch the emotional and financial wreckage that ensues.
In a decade, they will figure out it is easier to be straight.
Doody, Great point about ADA and soft discrimination, the unintended consequence.
Fiver, creating a cake or a floral arraignment being tantamount to participating in a marriage is silly, isn’t it? It’s a service they say they will provide to customers. They refused because of the type of wedding, they were sued and lost. As Marco said upstream the 14th Amendment protects people from such discrimination. It’s the law of the land, until it reaches the US Supreme Court, then all bets are off.
The dirty secret behind gay marriage is also it is a new market for divorce attorneys.
Nick wrote: “The dirty secret behind gay marriage is also it is a new market for divorce attorneys.”
Yes it is. A gay couple living in Alabama who were married in a different State now want Alabama to grant them a divorce. The problem is that Alabama does not recognize gay marriage, so they can’t grant them a divorce. So here is yet another lawsuit and moneymaker for lawyers.
Most of the legal battles right now involve recognition of gay marriage in other States not being recognized in States like Alabama. So the legal argument is now based upon the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Previously all the States recognized marriages done in other States, but now that the definition of marriage has been changed in some States, it has created confusion in law and the Judiciary.
Folks, this is what happens when you support the hijacking of law. You can’t come in and usurp all the laws written about marriage when it was understood as an institution for creating a new family unit to propagate the species and now have them apply to a completely different type of relationship. The laws regarding same sex unions should evolve separately from the long standing laws that originated before gay unions were ever even considered. That can happen if they are treated as domestic partnerships or civil unions.
Hold it. Someone wants to make gay marriage mandatory?! 😯
We’re gonna need a lot more flowers.
ada has limited disabled people in the work place through soft discrimination. people are afraid to hire them.
pogo:
whoops, that should be flagged. no Freudian slip, just bad typing.
pogo:
so you shop at the rainbow fagged establishments?
DBQ, that was my point above.
Some very thoughtful, substantive, comments this morning. The ADA was created to give disabled people the access they deserve. It was a law signed by Bush 41. It is a well intended law. Of course, when you put burdens on businesses there are always unintended consequences. And guess what, they are often created by attorneys. California in particular, but Illinois, Florida and Hawaii are also hotbeds of frivolous lawsuits involving ADA. Miniscule infractions like a doorway being 1/4 inch too narrow have created a system of extortion. Most victims are small businesses like this. Unlike much litigation, where you go after the whale, the big corporation, these ADA frivolous suits are based on the same philosophy of big appliance/electronic stores, VOLUME, VOLUME, VOLUME. There are professional ADA plaintiffs who have filed hundreds of lawsuits, extorting money from small businesses for microscopic violations of ADA. Create protected classes, no matter how well intended, one must always remember w/ what the road to hell is paved. And, attorneys are getting the most dollars paving that road. This suit appears to not be driven by dollars. But, quoting the line from Field of Dreams, “They will come, they will most definitely come.”
I’ll buy a product or service from any business that sells what I want, with the quality I expect and with the service I deserve. If they discriminate against me or I discover they are discriminating against anyone, then they will no longer get my business and I will go out of my way to make sure everyone knows of their business practices. If they happen to be the only business offering a product or service I want, then I may have to rethink how much I want it; if it happens to be a product or service I need, then I have a legitimate reason to seek a legal remedy.
But that is their intent: to force all to participate in gay marriage.
All must applaud the protected classes.
Ari sums it up nicely “I am not saying the florist shouldn’t be forced to sell flowers, if that is her business, to anyone and everyone. However, asking her to literally participate in an event is a step beyond service at the counter and out the door. “
In addition, there is a world of difference between selling flowers, selling donuts to anyone who walks in the door and creating a piece of art. The first is just a commodity. The second is a personal artistic effort to convey emotions and must necessarily contain a part of the artist’s soul.
Creating a beautiful wedding cake or floral arrangement for a wedding is just such an artistic endeavor. Just as taking photos for a wedding requires skill and artistry.
All of the above, make the artist a participant in some ways IN the event or celebration in a way that just selling a handful of cupcakes or flowers does not.
As a result, I am most grateful to shopkeepers who prominently place rainbow flags or “=” signs in their windows.
Makes my decisions that much easier.
The groups are a protected class because they are deemed better than others, mainly white/male/Christian/conservative.
The only response I can still lawfully make is -where possible- refusing to buy from or use a product or service made by these protected classes.
They hate me and don’t want or need my money anyway, so I see nothing lost by that approach.
Movies, CDs, stores, professional services. Balkanized in every way, just the way they demanded. Careful what you wish for.
Aridog,
I agree. Leave it to government to create discrimination to protect against discrimination.
To be clear…I am not saying the florist shouldn’t be forced to sell flowers, if that is her business, to anyone and everyone. However, asking her to literally participate in an event is a step beyond service at the counter and out the door. I’ll be joining in celebration of the birthdays of two gay friends or my daughter and others like me, this week, because that fits me. I am not obligated, it is because I want to d so for a couple really good guys. I don’t think of them as “protected” nut just as “folks” no different essentially than me….just with different choices made. I evaluate the man (or woman), not the choices. Liars and political pedants are the kind I choose to not associate with, for any reason, obligated or not. I can recognize their rights to disagree with me, but I as,m not obligated for celebrate it per se.