Different State, Same Result: Washington court rules against Christian florist in gay wedding case

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: FOX NEWS

URL: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/16/washington-court-rules-against-florist-in-gay-wedding-case.html

by: RACHEL LA CORTE, ASSOCIATED PRESS



 Curt Freed, left, and his husband Robert Ingersoll, the couple who sued florist Barronelle Stutzman for refusing to provide services for their wedding, smile after a hearing before Washington's Supreme Court in Bellevue, Wash.

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state's antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.

A lower court had fined Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, for denying service to a gay couple in 2013, and ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine.

Stutzman argued that she was exercising her First Amendment rights. But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

"As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism," the opinion said.

Stutzman's lawyers immediately said they would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

"It's wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will," Stutzman's attorney, Kristen Waggoner, wrote in a statement issued after the ruling. "Freedom of speech and religion aren't subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees."

It's one of several lawsuits around the country — including some involving bakers — about whether businesses can refuse to provide services over causes they disagree with, or whether they must serve everyone equally.

A Colorado case involving a baker who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Lambda Legal. In 2014, the court declined to hear an appeal of a case out of New Mexico that went against a photographer who denied a same-sex couple service.

Gov. Jay Inslee lauded Thursday's ruling, saying it was "in favor of equality for all Washingtonians."

"By ruling that intolerance based on sexual orientation is unlawful, the Court affirmed that Washington state will remain a place where no one can be discriminated against because of who they love," Inslee said in a written statement.

Stutzman had previously sold the couple flowers and knew they were gay. However, Stutzman told them that she couldn't provide flowers for their wedding because same-sex marriage was incompatible with her Christian beliefs.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the couple sued her, saying she broke state anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws, and the lower court agreed. The state's nine high court justices upheld that verdict.

The court rejected several arguments put forth by Stutzman, including the assertion that since other florists were willing to serve the couple, no harm occurred.

"As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace," the court wrote. "Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined."

The case thrust the great-grandmother into the national spotlight and she testified before state lawmakers in Indiana and Kansas.

Michael Scott, a Seattle attorney who worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed — the couple denied the flowers — had previously told justices he didn't believe Stutzman's floral creations constituted speech. By providing flowers for a same-sex marriage, he argued, "she's not endorsing same-sex marriage. She's selling what she sells."

Ferguson had said the state's argument rested on longstanding principle, and uprooting it would weaken antidiscrimination law.

After the arguments in the Supreme Court case last November, at a packed theater at Bellevue College, a large crowd of Stutzman's supporters greeted her outside, chanting her name and waving signs that said "Justice For Barronelle."

In a February 2015 ruling, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom found that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers because of sexual orientation violated Washington's anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. The following month, Ekstrom ordered Stutzman to pay a $1,000 penalty to the state and $1 in costs and fees.

Stutzman entered the florist business 30 years ago, when her mother bought a flower shop.

At a press conference following the ruling, Ferguson said that under Washington law, a business is not required to provide a particular service, but if it does so for couples of the opposite sex, it must provide that service equally to same-sex couples. Ferguson noted that Stutzman is not currently selling wedding flowers, but if she were to resume that side of her business, she would not be allowed to sell to only heterosexual couples.

"The state Supreme Court has made that very clear," he said.

[skeeter]

Here we go. This is just the beginning.

[SirLinksALot]

Here we go. This is just the beginning.

Actually, this is the continuation of what began in Oregon.

The gay activists will not stop until devout Christians buckle.

[EC]

Probably. I don't recall Jesus making any promises that following Him would be easy.

[Hondo69]

If a private college chooses to ban conservative student groups from campus - no problemo.

If a private business announces they will not allow any Trump-voting employees - woo hoo!

If a private business chooses to not sell their products to gay customers - string 'em up.

[catfish1957]

Easy solution to counter these bozos.....   Here would be my delivery to any left wing litigious matrimonial type.....


As a florist....


As a baker....


Organist?....


Minister?.....



Band for reception?



Caterer for reception?

[Smokin Joe]

Is anyone going to try to tell me this 'couple' couldn't find a homosexual flower arranger?

Sheeesh!

[mountaineer]

Is anyone going to try to tell me this 'couple' couldn't find a homosexual flower arranger?

Sheeesh!

They knew exactly what they were doing when they went to Mrs. Stutzman's shop, I'd wager. It had nothing to do with her particular floral arranging skills.

[Jazzhead]

If a private college chooses to ban conservative student groups from campus - no problemo.

If a private business announces they will not allow any Trump-voting employees - woo hoo!

If a private business chooses to not sell their products to gay customers - string 'em up.

The difference, of course, is that in many states and localities it's as against the law for a business owner to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate on the basis of race.   

Should it be against the law to discriminate on the basis of political belief?   

[Jazzhead]

There's a key difference with this decision that needs to be pointed out.   It appears to be a much more just result than others I've seen.   I believe, if memory serves,  that an earlier decision regarding a Christian baker or florist (I can't recall which) found for the plaintiffs and ordered the offending business owner to pay a punitive fine in the range of $100,000 or so.

That's not justice,  that's simply obnoxious.   Whatever harm was caused to his customer by the baker or florist, it didn't deserve a ruinous fine that would essentially drive him out of business.

Here the fine was $1,000 -  commensurate with the harm, but neither punitive nor ruinous.   The florist may well want to appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court.   That's fine - that's her right to pursue justice as she sees fit, and it's her choice to pay the legal costs to continue her crusade.   But social justice isn't achieved when good faith disputes are addressed by unjust sanctions. 

I think this court decided the matter fairly.     

[endicom]

The difference, of course, is that in many states and localities it's as against the law for a business owner to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate on the basis of race.   

Should it be against the law to discriminate on the basis of political belief?

You can't have a law for everything done and you shouldn't try to. If I wanted a Christian themed cake then I would pass by the bakery with the Jewish or Muslim symbols. Why? Is that because I discriminate against Jews and Muslims or because it makes sense?

[Cripplecreek]

Sorry guys, the courts have ruled and their say is final unless Trump disagrees. and in this case he clearly doesn't.

[Jazzhead]

You can't have a law for everything done and you shouldn't try to. If I wanted a Christian themed cake then I would pass by the bakery with the Jewish or Muslim symbols. Why? Is that because I discriminate against Jews and Muslims or because it makes sense?

Why would a Jewish-owned bakery refuse to bake me a Christian-themed cake?   Most religious folks are perfectly reasonable and, besides, when they're in business the idea is to make money,  not turn up their noses at paying customers who request what they advertise to sell.

 

By providing flowers for a same-sex marriage, he argued, "she's not endorsing same-sex marriage. She's selling what she sells."

Exactly.   

[EC]

Why would a Jewish-owned bakery refuse to bake me a Christian-themed cake? 

Why wouldn't they refuse?

[The_Reader_David]

The court's finding is, of course, erroneous, because it is not the free speech clause of the First Amendment, but the free exercise of religion clause that is relevant here.  The Latin Church in their 1962 Missal published a list of "9 Ways of Being an Accessory to Another's Sin":

I. By counsel
II. By command
III. By consent
IV. By provocation
V. By praise or flattery
VI. By concealment
VII. By partaking
VIII. By silence
IX. By defense of the ill done

Providing floral arrangements, photography and other services for pay to the purported weddings of sodomites partakes of V and VII, and if done without objection of VIII. 

Now the florists in question have probably been protestants, rather than Latins, but they intuitively understand this, and the state requirement that they participate in the sin of others is a plain violation of their religiously informed conscience.

It is the same refusal to participate in the sin of another that made the Obama administration's "accommodation" of the Little Sisters of the Poor a continued violation of the First Amendment, since it demanded of Latin Christians that they participate in what they regard as the sin of contraception by consent.

[endicom]

Why would a Jewish-owned bakery refuse to bake me a Christian-themed cake? 

It's not that they would refuse but that I wouldn't ask if there was an alternative.

BTW, where I grew up most of the businesses, bakeries included, were Jewish. Where people shopped for what was guided mostly by common sense and not by who would be willing to do what.

[mountaineer]

Just curious, if you (any of you, I'm not singling out anyone) were a baker and the best cake decorator in town, what would you do if a neo-Nazi came in and wanted to order a cake for Hitler's birthday that depicted a crematory and the words, "Happy Birthday, Adolph. Finish the job."? Of course, neo-Nazis are not a protected class now, unlike homosexuals, but is there an analogy there somewhere? 

[Jazzhead]

Why wouldn't they refuse?

I suppose they could.  But I prefer to assume that most religious folks are reasonable, and not zealots letting their intolerant religious views affect the businesses they run.   Welcoming all customers IS good business.   

[Jazzhead]

It's not that they would refuse but that I wouldn't ask if there was an alternative.

BTW, where I grew up most of the businesses, bakeries included, were Jewish. Where people shopped for what was guided mostly by common sense and not by who would be willing to do what.

Common sense?   I'm all for that.   

[Jazzhead]

Just curious, if you (any of you, I'm not singling out anyone) were a baker and the best cake decorator in town, what would you do if a neo-Nazi came in and wanted to order a cake for Hitler's birthday that depicted a crematory and the words, "Happy Birthday, Adolph. Finish the job."? Of course, neo-Nazis are not a protected class now, unlike homosexuals, but is there an analogy there somewhere? 

Well, the legal issue is driven by the status of a group as protected.   If I were a baker I'd tell that neo-Nazi to eff off.   But then again,  I fail to see how a request to provide flowers for a wedding is anywhere near the offense of asking for a cake with a slogan urging the killing of Jews.   

[EC]

I suppose they could.  But I prefer to assume that most religious folks are reasonable, and not zealots letting their intolerant religious views affect the businesses they run.   Welcoming all customers IS good business.

They're people first. Everyone has their cut off - something which they won't go past for all the money in the world. My barber refuses to serve Chelsea fans. 

[Jazzhead]

They're people first. Everyone has their cut off - something which they won't go past for all the money in the world. My barber refuses to serve Chelsea fans. 

Fine, but this florist advertised that she provided flowers for weddings.   The customer only asked for what she said she'd provide.  I notice that now she no longer advertises that she provides flowers for wedding. And that's exactly how she should handle it if the thought of two folks who love each other marrying gets her religious panties in a wad. 

[Silver Pines]

They knew exactly what they were doing when they went to Mrs. Stutzman's shop, I'd wager. It had nothing to do with her particular floral arranging skills.

@mountaineer

Dana Loesch talked about this case yesterday.  The florist had provided services for them in the past.  In fact, she had an established gay clientele; she did the flowers for their parties and other functions.  But when it came down to a wedding, she said it went against her religious beliefs.  The sane response would have been, "Okay, I understand, we'll get someone else for that."  Especially when there was (apparently) a cordial merchant-customer history. 

If I were getting married and I asked a Muslim florist to do my flowers, and she refused on the basis of not being able to recognize my religion as valid, I'd go elsewhere.  No problem. 

[Silver Pines]

Well, the legal issue is driven by the status of a group as protected.   If I were a baker I'd tell that neo-Nazi to eff off.   But then again,  I fail to see how a request to provide flowers for a wedding is anywhere near the offense of asking for a cake with a slogan urging the killing of Jews.   

@Jazzhead

Possibly because you don't understand that the Christian religion specifically condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments, and in very strong language.  It also specifies what constitutes a marriage and what does not.  The florist was concerned not with personal offense, but with offending her God.

[Smokin Joe]

There's a key difference with this decision that needs to be pointed out.   It appears to be a much more just result than others I've seen.   I believe, if memory serves,  that an earlier decision regarding a Christian baker or florist (I can't recall which) found for the plaintiffs and ordered the offending business owner to pay a punitive fine in the range of $100,000 or so.

That's not justice,  that's simply obnoxious.   Whatever harm was caused to his customer by the baker or florist, it didn't deserve a ruinous fine that would essentially drive him out of business.

Here the fine was $1,000 -  commensurate with the harm, but neither punitive nor ruinous.   The florist may well want to appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court.   That's fine - that's her right to pursue justice as she sees fit, and it's her choice to pay the legal costs to continue her crusade.   But social justice isn't achieved when good faith disputes are addressed by unjust sanctions. 

I think this court decided the matter fairly.   

I think the court is full of crap. A business should have the right to refuse business to anyone. The right to worship as one chooses is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as is the freedom of assembly. The right to be queer is not. For the law to require that someone operate their business in a manner they find religiously offensive is an abrogation of a fundamental right. The couple could have bought flowers elsewhere.
The owners of the shop should not have to pay them to do so.

This is nothing but the imposition of moral standards of the State on the Rights of the shop owners to practice their own religious beliefs. That, simply put, is a governmental establishment of religion. The State is choosing what doctrine the shop owners must follow, contrary to their belief.