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.
Here is another dirty little industry secret. The insurance industry (Warren Buffet) and the financial planning industry do not want to see the estate tax go away. It is a huge money maker for the insurance companies (Warren Buffet) and planners to create income for themselves.
Follow the money whenever there is a group for OR against something and you will see the real motivations.
The real question may be, what will happen when Americans wake up to find their country was conquered and putrefied by perverts, freaks and parasites.
Gay divorce is A NEW MARKET. It means MORE divorce dollars in sllimy divorce attorneys pockets. Hetero people are not getting married in the numbers they used to, so divorce biz is down. I am chuckling @ the sheer vapidity. Good thing there isn’t an IQ test to comment here.
I don’t know many cake maker that script on REAL wedding cakes
@ Max
The article referenced speaks to the issue of “symbolic speech” which doesn’t necessarily have to have words written all over the artistic product. It is specifically written about in the article.
A Picasso painting is making a statement even though there are not written words.
The issue is that a bouquet of generic flowers is just a bouquet of generic flowers: just as flour, butter, sugar and eggs can make a generic cake, However, when the artist is required to go the extra mile in the arranging of a wedding floral display or the artistic creation of a wedding cake …..it then becomes a symbolic speech statement. A statement about marriage that the artist might agree with or not agree with.
The issue is can you compel someone to create something that represents a statement that they do not wish to make.
Can we take a bakery owned by some people who are pro choice and force them to decorate a cake that opposes abortion and has dead babies on it? I know. An over the top example, but just because we might find this type of cake offensive……can we be forced to make it?
Max,
We know how seriously that may have violated her religious beliefs. Those things probably make people sneeze like the devil.
http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/define-liatris-blazingstar-gayfeather-1.jpg
Max, maybe the couple asked for the Gayfeather flower to be used in the arraignments. 😉
Nick,
But it’s a boom hack business for divorce lawyers when it’s heteros getting divorced, NO? So, when will the hetero community rise up and put a stop to the only legal tool used to break up traditional marriage and put these barristers out of business?
DBQ
Your argument falls flat on its face for Washington Florist Baronelle Stutzman…
… They’re just flowers. No lettering or messaging involved.
Besides, I don’t know many cake maker that script on REAL wedding cakes.
I hope everyone is noticing the trend to move away from “sanctity” message to the “religious liberty” argument. The void of course correction in the hetero world is appalling… Having just redefined marriage to be between ONE man and not two or five wives (sorry Mormons) to just one, their drive to “preserve” it is poor. They allow divorce among themselves. In violation of their own Biblical Laws, too. So, with sharpened spears, they’re coming for teh gayz… I mean, they just redefined marriage to include mixed races (GASP!).
raff,
It’s never a dirty little secret when hetero’s do it all the time…
The dirty secret, barrister, is that attorneys are pushing for gay marriage so they can profit from gay divorce. Many are bigots who tell gay jokes, but will be take the divorce cases and hefty retainers. I know a few who fit this profile. There are many more.
Here is a link to an article that explains what I and some others have been trying to convey. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/how_to_win_the_christian_bakersamesex_wedding_cake_debate.html
That forcing someone to bake a “WEDDING” cake for same sex marriage is forcing them to participate and create speech that is against their will and against their religion.
Excerpt: Freedom of speech.
Usually missed in the commentary on this subject is that the bakers in question are not refusing service to a type of people — they are refusing to be party to a type of message. This is not debatable. When you put writing on a same-sex “wedding” cake, you’re crafting a message; if you place figurines (of two men, for instance) on that cake, you’re erecting symbols relating that message. Note here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that “Symbolic Speech” — a legal term in U.S. law — is protected under the First Amendment; examples of such rulings would be that pertaining to flag-burning and the Tinker v. Des Moines case.
And can we compel people to participate in the creation of a message? Forced speech is not free speech.
Some homosexuality activists have likened the bakers’ refusal to provide faux-wedding cakes to a denial of service to blacks. This is a false analogy. A race-specific refusal is denying service based on what a person is; in the wedding-cake incidents, denial was based on what message was being requested</i>
Aridog
It seems that from your comments and those of many others, it is simply a collision of one edge of the sword with the other. The florist wants to have the right to design her business after her religion, yet the marrying couple should not be discriminated against. When that discrimination is not consistent with the florist’s business model-she does serve them and take their money on a regular basis-but is designed by her religion, when she applies the religious card, then she sort of cancels herself out. The florist functions out of both sides of her mouth. The Constitution and the Preamble, Declaration of Rights, etc. everywhere in the beginning focus on all not just these and those and certainly all these sacred documents do not differentiate by religions.
It seems to me that this is a standoff that is the perfect example of dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. Considering that this blog is all about the law, the law says that it is illegal to discriminate this time. Next time in another state the law may say it is legal to discriminate. Some states are special one way and other states special another way. I guess that is what Americans mean by the sacred ‘states rights’.
This might be an opportune time to recognize religious fervor at its minimum and realize that it is the same ingredient that is causing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands at its maximum. Freedom of religion should always be accompanied with freedom from religion.
How could gay couples getting a divorce be a “dirty little secret” when 50 % of hetero couples get divorced?
This is ‘Baking Bad’ (for all the Breaking Bad fans out there)
http://www.incrediblethings.com/food/breaking-bad-cookbook/
It seems Washington State and Colorado have something else in common now besides legal marijuana.
http://outfrontonline.com/news/pro-lgbt-baker-slapped-religious-discrimination-complaint/
The AG’s office over-stepped. I wonder if the tables had been turned, IF it had been instead a gay florist who refused to provide service for a heterosexual person’s marriage, if it would have made this much news and disaster for the gay florist. Me thinks the florist would have thrown up the gay card and gotten immediate protections and given a get-out-of-jail free pass (i.e., no damages awarded).
http://ktth.com/2015/02/20/florists-attorney-suggestion-government-can-compel-express-message-terrifying/
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8608
The tyranny and oppression of King George was throw off by the American Revolution. The government is the new Subject of the new Sovereign. The Sovereign is free. The new Sovereign is the People.
239 years later, Americans opinions and actions are dictated by the “government.”
Of course any American can assemble or NOT with people of their choosing.
This business owner is free to conduct business.
This customer is free to shop at another business.
The dynamic and competitive markets of American Free Enterprise will reward one and penalize the other.
Consumer law is unconstitutional.
Consumer law is an extension of the Communist Manifesto.
Redistribution in any form including, but not limited to, welfare, social services, affirmative action and non-discrimination “private property” housing are all irrefutably anathema and unconstitutional.
The acceptance or rejection of skin color, orientation or any other facet of a person’s physicality or mentality shall not be legislated. Individuals shall adapt to the universe around them.
Government control and dictatorship are principles in the Communist Manifesto
not the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Social engineering is not mandated by the founding documents while “the pursuit of happiness” as one of the “blessings of liberty” and the enjoyment of multiple “freedoms” are.
Freedom and Free Enterprise auto-resolve all issues. No legislation is authorized or necessary.
The Judicial Branch is a corrupt joke, in tatters, as it continuously, falsely and disingenuously finds TWO MEANINGS TO ONE SENTENCE. The Founders had one meaning for every single sentence. Their words were simple and the government structure was simple – read the Preamble – you missed it – it’s directly in front of the Constitution. The Preamble is not only binding, it is the essential American context, without which chaos will ensue. Looks to me like chaos has ensued.
NO CONTROL OF INDUSTRY.
NO REDISTRIBUTION.
NO “COMMON OFFENSE” FOREIGN RELIGIOUS WARS.
Freedom and Self-Reliance.
You can have your cake and eat it too.
But you must not be a Catholic or Jew.
Baptist or Muslim dont work either..
So make you a cake as fast as you can.
And put it in the oven in a frying pan.
When all is done the icing is done too..
The ants come a running along with a crew.
Another reason the term “protected class” bothers me is that in parts of the world today, there is only one “protected class” and if you aren’t part of it, you just may die for that infraction. If my neighborhood were to take up that purview, my life expectancy might be short. They don’t and won’t won’t because they came here for the same reasons my ancestors did, some dating to before the Revolutionary War. If this particular gay couple had the temperance in their hearts they demand of others, they’d simply acknowledge the florist’s position and wish them well. That they don’t and made it a court case says a lot to me. AS some of us celebrate Ash Wednesday, repeated again to day in my chosen parish, when I am maybe one of 3-4 gringos max, I am moved by how I am accepted different as I might be. I was born in the beginning of a World War’s ashes, and suspect I may die in the ashes of another if we cannot get over this categorizing with hostility those who don’t believe exactly as I do, we do, whoever does.
When we celebrate a gay couple’s birthdays this Friday it will because I just like them, that those of us there all do, and find our differences really quite minimal. I doubt we’d find that in parts of the world in flame today, which is the reason for the flames…personal human agendas for selfish and territorial purposes, just as it has been throughout history. Under such conditions I know that will never been taken alive…fortunately 72 is too old to be forced to serve, although in my unit organization, 70 is the oldest deployed so far. We create out own hell, and seem impervious to the means we do it. I am hopeful this mentality doesn’t reach my home area, as I am not among the “protected” by today’s standards. I am just me.