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.
ALso, are you aware that the Catholic Bishops have stated that it is a sin, even a mortal sin, for a Catholic to vote for a politician who supports abortion?
Why?–Because that voter, just like this flower shop, is enabling the sin
He said that voting for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are “intrinsically evil and gravely sinful” makes a voter “morally complicit” and places the eternal salvation of his or her soul in “serious jeopardy.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-paprocki-warns-of-intrinsic-evils-in-democratic-platform/
Xhawke+*-+
ALso, are you aware that the Catholic Bishops have stated that it is a sin, even a mortal sin, for a Catholic to vote for a politician who supports abortion?
So, what is your point here – she is a Southern Baptist.
God finds this behaviour to be an abomination—one of the worst thing to do to offend God and His punishment called for is equal to premeditated murder—death,
How do you know – we are no longer under the old covenant and Jesus taught us how to live differently. He never ever once spoke as you are now speaking and there is nothing in the Bible with reference to Homosexuals regarding Jesus’ teachings. It is mysteriously absent.
How was it, that draftees could get a deferment based on their Creed?
That’s a little more important, more urgent then flowers…………………………
They didn’t mind selling them flowers when they were living “in sin” what changed everything? Where do they become so different to others that the “abomination” rubs off.
Bare in mind that ‘gay rights’ are rights made up by the court out of thin air. Religious rights are in the Constitution.
So? That is what the justice department is for. She lost. She was offered a settlement and she is the one who rode the high horse. She had no integrity about this and it’s obvious.
Besides, gays want EXTRA rights–they have the same rights as anyone else—marry the opposite sex……………that’s right, they want health insurance too. Really, they can purchase all of these things, insurance and all and people will make money from their union also even though you have judged it as base.
Forgiveness is up to God –not man, as it is God who is offended.
Oh, so you know the mind of God now? interesting. okay. I guess you don’t have to love your enemy and your neighbor as yourself either right? I suppose you don’t turn the other cheek because this does not apply here no doubt.
Forgiveness also entails the responsibility to not offend again………………….
ooooo —- Nooo it does not. Man is human. God sent Jesus Christ down here to show us how to be with the Holy Spirit and Love and live in Harmony. He always knew that Man had a sinful nature meaning we make mistakes. Jonathan Edwards, fool that he was, taught the Christians, in his so called “Great Awakening” how to be ashamed of their Original Sin. He taught we must “Repent” and never do it again!!!!
Of course Jesus admonished and taught that , with love – not some unrealistic expectation.
Anyway
Those Bishops were morally complicit in putting the Pedophile priests in different Parishes so they have no room to talk about anything do they now?
I have a very close friend that was chloroformed by one when she was 8 and never knew quite what happened but her Mother told her that those were Holy men and what they did was ok. lol
She gave them references for other business to help them. They were served, just not from her. The AG goes way too far, threatening to take her house, her bank account because of her beliefs. Just because she is a business doesn’t mean that she gives up her right to her own Christina beliefs. Government will be taking alot of homes in Washington.This is tyranny at it’s best, pay fine, take your business because you don’t think the way the government demands you to think.
You didn’t read the blog ruling apparently
After a ruling this week that Arlene’s Flowers violated the law by declining to decorate for a same-sex ceremony, Washington’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, who initiated the legal action against the grandmother and small business owner, offered a settlement of $2,001 if she would agree no longer do any weddings and not to appeal the ruling.
Below is the response to the offer from Mrs. Stutzman
He offered her a settlement. She won if she woudn’t do another wedding. It’s against her religon to do a wedding cake of the same sex even though she has always done flowers for them before. This is bigotry as they are living together in sin as well. Where does she draw the line. So, since she doesn’t know, she can accept the ruling or decline it. She is the one who started it after all.
Just watched the Washington florist interviewed on FOX News. I was previously unaware that it is not the gay couple that is bringing the suit against the florist. The gay couple and the florist sound like they are friends, and it sounds like they remain on good terms.
No, this suit was brought by the state attorney general. I return to my brief comment at the start of this discussion.
Meet the New Totalitarians.
Ingersoll and Freed sued, as did Washington state, alleging violations of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act. The couple went ahead with their wedding, but they had it at home with 11 guests and flowers from another florist, instead of the larger event they had originally envisioned.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Judge-Washington-florist-who-refused-gay-wedding-broke-law-292534331.html
Should a DJ be forced to do an event that requires him/her to play rap music that refers to women as whores and b*tches or promotes drugs, cop killing? Does the DJ have the right to say, “Know I won’t play that because personally I disagree with the content? Should a theatre owner be forced to have to play “X” rated movies because a few want to see it?
Karen S Said ..
Aridog – Tico sounds adorable.
He is and every morning he leaves, via car, with his observant Muslim owner, a lovely lady by any measure…and goes to work with her. No surprise she’s trained her dog very well…as I said, in my next go round with a new dog, I want her help. She is THAT good. How “Tico” manages to tease our gullible “Dera” is awesome. One small little Chihuahua with manners and obedience down to a tee, and with a great sense of humor. …fairly rare in my experience. The woman is “da man!” 🙂
happypappies:
I don’t have a clue what you’re on about
First you claim to be offended by my first post as using this blog to moralize and than your next post, you use the blog to evangelize–I don’t get it.
Secondly, your explanation about ‘a birth by water’ has absolutely nothing to do with a women’s water breaking and no one interprets this quote in this way.
Furthermore, your second post to me has nothing to do with this thread, as I’m talking about reason—I doubt that the court would hear an argument regarding a Soul.
Just sayin’
Xhawke
Look up what Monte Said because he does have a clue. This is a Law Blog, Not a Moralizing Platform. It is one thing to say if you think its right for the person to say she has the Liberty to tell the Couple they can’t buy their cake there. We were all joking earlier. I left the cake in the rain at MacArthur Park in a Youtube Earlier. I have been trying to lighten this thing up because it’s a delicate thing. I get it. it’s cool Okay? Really it is? I was just telling you how I felt.
It’s relevent to be twice born if you are a Christian because once you are you don’t care about things like the cake you bake for gay people in the 21st century. Just like when Jesus drew in the dirt and said let those who have not sinned cast the first stone.
That’s all. It’s very relevent and it has been interpreted that way before. Here – let me find sonething for you –
Oh, I can’t find anything good and I know what I mean better than what anyone tells me because I am old. lol. I am a crone that lives alone and my Husband is in the Veterans Home so bear with me here. I have conversations with the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t answer me charlady ever. Only when I am down.
Okay – The water of course is originally from you being born, but as you know, it is ritually applied again to spiritually baptize you into the initiation of the receiving of the Holy Spirit Because you must be Twice Born. You must become a proper receptacle. God has given you free will, and you must lose yourself and see the Truth in order to find yourself in the Spirit and then your will see the Truth and the Truth will set you Free and you will be twice Born.
This is all true. It is the secret of Life and it is where all blessings flow from. Now, You asked so take it for what it is worth, Okay?
The body corrupts, the message lives on: The nature of being, the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. Is better to have children know their Mothers and Fathers as standing up for what they believe in, then bow down because someone complained.
If you are a true Christian, than Christianity is a Reality—not just a religion
As a Christian this ‘marriage’ is a sin and by providing a service to assist in making this sin happen, makes the provider a sinner.
The provider becomes an ‘enabler;’.
So, the court is compelling the provider to sin, which is a violation of the providers freedom of religion rights.
Xhawke
I wouldn’t answer to this eccept it really bothers me personally that you would use the blog as a stand to moralize in the name of Christ Jesus. Jesus was about Love and not pointing fingers. There are many sinners and enablers out there for many different things that you never hear about.
RE: happypappies:
I logicly broke down the argument as to why it is a violation of the providers rights and, as long as you brought it up, yes, morals have EVERYTHING to do with it as morals are the difference between right and wrong……
I never once used His name, except in the context of His followers.
If you’re implying that Jesus would approve of gay marriage, you are delusional.
………………..
Xhawke
We are talking about Soul not Reason here. I don’t think you know the heart of Jesus Christ – Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water [the first physical birth – a woman’s water breaks when going into labor and giving birth] and the Spirit [the second spiritual birth], he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical birth is just that, only physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit [the second birth is spiritual]. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.'”
This answer has nothing to do with reason
Xhawke wrote: “As a Christian this ‘marriage’ is a sin and by providing a service to assist in making this sin happen, makes the provider a sinner.”
This is an excellent rational argument for how the anti-discrimination law is unconscionable and violates the florist’s First Amendment rights.
Davidm2575
I realize you have left me out of rational arguments for a long time now. Let me be irrational here and come from the unconscious soul where the real person lives. It is discriminatory for the florist to not sell the wedding cake to the gay couple despite her religion. The Christian religion practices forgiveness and not the a view of something that is based on love being morally unconscionable that is between 2 consenting adults behind a bedroom door. The original scripture was for prostitutes in a temple male and female and has been used in a negative and derogatory way ever since to shame homosexual adults.
happypappies said:
The Christian religion practices forgiveness and not the a view of something that is based on love being morally unconscionable that is between 2 consenting adults behind a bedroom door. The original scripture was for prostitutes in a temple male and female and has been used in a negative and derogatory way ever since to shame homosexual adults.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I don’;t know where you get your Biblical information from, but, again, this is pure nonsense.
God finds this behaviour to be an abomination—one of the worst thing to do to offend God and His punishment called for is equal to premeditated murder—death,
Furthermore, this is all irrelevant—-the court has no right to interfere with her religious freedom or beliefs—whatever they are.
How was it, that draftees could get a deferment based on their Creed?
That’s a little more important, more urgent then flowers…………………………
Bare in mind that ‘gay rights’ are rights made up by the court out of thin air. Religious rights are in the Constitution.
Besides, gays want EXTRA rights–they have the same rights as anyone else—marry the opposite sex…………….
Forgiveness is up to God –not man, as it is God who is offended.
Forgiveness also entails the responsibility to not offend again………………….
davidm2575: Thank you for the compliment…
happypappies wrote: “The Christian religion practices forgiveness and not the a view of something that is based on love being morally unconscionable that is between 2 consenting adults behind a bedroom door.
It doesn’t really matter what your Christian religion practices. We live in a country with many religions, not just yours. Nobody objects to love, and nobody has called love unconscionable between 2 consenting adults behind a bedroom door.
Two gay people can love each other as passionately as they would like. I certainly would not object to that. We need more love like that.
What I do object to, however, is their push to redefine marriage into something new. Marriage is something that has nothing to do with what they do. That is blatantly wrong for them to force this new definition of marriage upon all of us. They are creating a state of lawlessness in this country. I object to that. They do not have the biological equipment to satisfy the primary reasons for the institution of marriage, namely, coitus and reproduction. Same sex unions and opposite sex unions are inherently different from each other. Opposite sex unions are superior to same sex unions because it leads to coitus which facilitates a union between two DIFFERENT kinds of people, a male and a female, which leads to CHILDREN and the creation of a new family. Changing the law cannot change nature and cannot change these inherent biological differences between same sex unions and opposite sex unions. I have no objection to same sex unions, but they are not the same as a marriage, and to change the laws for this new fad breaks down our legal system and leads us all toward lawlessness. This little example of the florist is just one small example of how it is destructive to the rights of everyone.
happypappies wrote: “The original scripture was for prostitutes in a temple male and female and has been used in a negative and derogatory way ever since to shame homosexual adults.”
You may want to research this more about your Bible. This is pure speculation by gay activists. Your Bible mentions nothing about prostitutes. In fact, it refers to lust as being the motivation for homosexuality, and their sexual addition to it as a kind of judgment from God.
“… God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27)
The following link is a study that shows how little evidence there is for the existence of cult prostitution at the time the New Testament was written. You may find it interesting to read.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_ephesus_baugh.html
Davidm2575
They are creating a state of lawlessness in this country.
(I don’t understand this statement as they did everything legally)
I object to that. They do not have the biological equipment to satisfy the primary reasons for the institution of marriage, namely, coitus and reproduction.
In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. “In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance,” according to anthropologist Brian Gilley
You know David, it really was all about the Temple Prostitute thing. The Holy Eastern Orthodox people that put the Bible together 1800 years ago for the Sun Kin Constantine for Political Reasons were the ones who came up with the frowned upon horrors of Same Sec relations. The Brothers in the Medieval Orthodox Church preformed a form of it.
I know, it was an “abomination”
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
I know that part of the Sermon on the Mount is Familiar but what does it mean to you David?
Same sex unions and opposite sex unions are inherently different from each other.
I don’t know why they have to be ecept for the equipment they use but then I have never been in one.
Opposite sex unions are superior to same sex unions because it leads to coitus which facilitates a union between two DIFFERENT kinds of people, a male and a female, which leads to CHILDREN and the creation of a new family.
David, there are gay couples adopting now married and not that are successful with their children. I know it’s against all odds. You know what? I used to feel the same way you do but I don’t anymore because it’s apparent to me that times are changing and we all need to learn to move with the change in order to grow as a people in rather than be static.
I don’t know why it’s considered superior to be in a male – female relationship except for the fact that some so called Christian Pontiffs that Constantine Hired said so and they burned all of the Gay people out then.
Changing the law cannot change nature and cannot change these inherent biological differences between same sex unions and opposite sex unions.
How do you know that it’s natural for people for people to only have urges for the same sex regarding unions biologically? Because they cannot have coitus does not a marriage make. Marriage has only taken on the male/female connotation only since the Christian Pontiffs said so and there was the interpretation of Leviticus in the Torah by the Hebrews. I always felt it was interesting that they had such an exalted place for their prostitutes but no matter. It’s good women are looked up to for being useful even if they are considered (used)
I have no objection to same sex unions, but they are not the same as a marriage
This “was” a Christian cultural bias and since we have freedom of religion it has no longer any use in our society and has been struck down as discriminatory. Thank goodness.
Aridog – Tico sounds adorable.
As a libertarian, I believe any two people – whatever may be their sexual persuasion – have a right to live together, and to marry if they wish (although the asking of permission for the latter, gives to the state additional power over individual lives). Nevertheless, I also believe the anti-discrimination laws to be unconstitutional, in that they violate the right of an individual to do with his own property as he wishes, and thereby make him an employee of the state.
Religion plays no part in this, as every culture invents its own gods – by which I mean that one does not have to justify one’s reasons for refusing to serve a particular category of customer, or sell one’s house to whom one pleases, or work to preserve the character of a neighbourhood, school or university.
Aridog
I mistook you for someone else. Thanks for illustrating the distinction.
Can we now say that anyone may copy the floral arrangement, the cake design of their competitor without infringing upon the artistic license of the original design?
Ah, the “Money Changers.”
Any similarity to Bernie Madoff, Sheldon Adelson Sandy Weill, Jamie Dimon, Alan Greenspan, Ben “The-Constitution-Has-Evolved” Bernanke or Janet Yellen?
Machinations, machinations, machinations.
Always with the machinations.
Nick,
Wedding reception rentals are a boom, too!
… Just sayin’.
Darren…I can’t remove the $$, so please release it with a less problematic term, like “jerk.” 🙂
I can’t “edit” my remark, so what’s next?
Issac…in addition, to be trite by way of example, so to speak, if I witness a neighbor walking their well behaved dog off leash (illegal here) I am not inclined to report them or waste the police department’s time over it. I might ask them to comply with the law if necessary (…e.g., dog taking a dump on lawns every where or acting aggressive toward strangers) , but it would be face to face, person to person, not a matter of “it’s the law” and you must bey…just as I do. Good Lawd, my next door neighbor has a Chihuahua so well trained and behaved I’m inclined to ask her for lessons when I acquire another dog…why? I’ve spent a life time training dogs and horses and have seldom seen a dog so well trained & behaved….it is never to late to learn. “Tico” is less threatening than my German Shepherds, so I get it. Because she seems to not need a leash to make “Tico” behave. I’ve had but one or two dogs that good, so I am impressed. It is note worthy that her “Tico” seems to have great fun teasing “Dera” and we both laugh about it. He’s positively charming and fearless in the usual manner of Chihuahuas…bless his little heart. If the neighbor lady ever needs a dog sitter, if she should have to be out of town, I’m definitely willing. “Tico” is a charming lunatic and impossible to not adore.
Dust Bunny Queen
You make a great argument, and I have to agree, that requesting a (gay friendly) bakery to make a cake that denounces the LGBT community at large should be objectionable by the owner/operator/proprietor. But this bakery offered to bake the cake and supply the needed frosting for the people ordering the cake to decorate it any way they saw fit… so they sued.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0122/Denver-baker-sued-for-refusing-to-write-anti-gay-slogans-on-cake
I am “awaiting moderation?” For my remark at 6:45 PM today. Why?
Aridog. The comment contained a prohibited word and the filter snagged it. For reference it was a word that contained two $$ in it. Removing that word and those like it will correct the problem.
Happy Pappies…thank you. Where ever I’ve been the “indigenous” people have been fascinating, given I was in the minority in those places, and in no need to have their “day.” That, in personal travels, inside the USA, has included Lakota Sioux and Crow people…both I found fascinating and able to teach me things I hadn’t considered…including their own differences which over time seem to have calmed somewhat.
Issac….you make a pedantic point on a simple opinion I have…if I were to be turned down for a service by a provider (and I have been for sundry reasons) that is neither the only one in town nor absolutely necessary for me to accomplish my goals, I’d thank them for their honesty and move on. It just insn’t that hard to show temperance. Anything less makes the “protected class” anathema to me, we are all protected or none of us are, and I’ve been places that held true…how many “protected classes” do we have and are they singular, as in this instance of one couple and one florist, or universal such as the Jim Crow and worse laws and customs of the deep south circa 1950-1965+, where there was no choice about what drinking fountain, lunch counter, et etc. you could seek service. I really don’t think you are foolish enough to make that comparison to me.
The “special little flowers” mentality irks me…and I think “irk” is the right word…not going to start a revolution, just wish we all, gays included, could be more civil. As I said earlier, I have friends with different customs than mine, and I love them as much as any other friend, no limitations. It is something we’d better learn soon or we will see another war when the “protected class” is no one. I never want my focus to be so narrowed again as it once was when communication and civility broke down and arms broken out. It may just be me but I am very weary of this contretemps every time some special little flower is offended. Offense can be ameliorated by understanding. They key point is that they have multiple other choices and intentionally make it a singular affair. I’m sure YMMV… but I’d hope not.
PS: Issac…I know with relative certainty that you NOT are like the troll who called me a threat to humanity or some such thing, when my experience with firearms just possibly makes me the safest guy around over all. If I never use one again against anything more threatening than a paper target or clay pigeon, I will be delighted. And I plan that to be the case. Experience alone vis a vis who I can trust is all that inclines me to be an armed person, and oddly not in my own neighborhood, when I have the distinct minority. Life is precious and long ago far away I learned that with stick in the eye certainty…but even then I can understand how some, inexperienced as they may be, might not think so. That is on them not me.