Washington Supreme Court Punishes Barronelle Stutzman. What Now?

After much anticipation, the Washington Supreme Court has punished Barronelle Stutzman for peacefully operating her business consistently with her faith. The court’s decision affirms a lower-court ruling that requires Barronelle to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her. Often, in cases like this, the attorneys’ fees for each side are hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.

Barronelle is a 72-year-old floral artist who owns and operates Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. She serves everyone in her community, regardless of their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But even though she serves all people, she cannot use her artistic skills to celebrate all events. In particular, because of her beliefs about marriage, she cannot design custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding (although she would be happy to sell premade arrangements or raw flowers to couples planning such an event).

So while she has been glad to serve Rob Ingersoll, a gay man and one of her all-time favorite customers, for nearly a decade (and would be happy to continue doing so today), she could not use her artistic talents for one request””to create custom arrangements designed to celebrate his nuptials.

But the State of Washington (which first filed a lawsuit against Barronelle) and now the State’s highest court have declared illegal her practice of running her business consistently with her faith. Regardless of the fact that she has created dozens of floral arrangements for Rob, she must also produce artwork under circumstances that would violate her convictions.

Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to stand with Barronelle by appealing this ruling against her to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Barronelle’s story demonstrates a troubling trend””governmental agencies and officials that have grown increasingly hostile to religious freedom, particularly the freedom of people who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. These widespread efforts to suppress freedom are rooted in a disdain for this particular religious belief””a belief that, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, is "decent and honorable” and held "in good faith by reasonable and sincere people.”

President Trump, who has promised to make religious liberty the "first priority” of his administration, has an opportunity to take a stand against the ongoing efforts to marginalize people of faith. Reports have surfaced suggesting that he is considering an executive order to protect religious freedom.

The leaked draft of the executive order shows that President Trump is contemplating specific protections for people who, like Barronelle, "act (or decline[] to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” The document also makes clear that individuals "do not forfeit their religious freedom when . . . earning a living” or "participating in the marketplace” or the "public square.”

Signing such an order would send a strong message throughout the country””that people like Barronelle deserve religious freedom too.

But even though that order would be a significant step in the right direction, it would not solve all the problems facing Barronelle and many other ADF clients (such as Jack Phillips and Carl and Angel Larsen). Their state or local governments (as opposed to the federal government) are the bullies depriving them of their First Amendment freedoms. So even if the president sets a good example, much work remains to be done to secure freedom’s future.

In the wake of this decision, Barronelle needs your prayers. This ruling is devastating for her. Please join with us in praying for her during this difficult time.

And as we lament this ruling that denies freedom not only to Barronelle but also to millions of people of faith who share her beliefs about marriage, it is also important to encourage President Trump to sign an executive order protecting religious freedom. It won’t be a cure-all, but it would definitely be a step in the right direction.

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2017/02/16/washington-supreme-court-punishes-barronelle-stutzman.-what-now

This is likely the most liberal court district in the country. California - Washington - Oregon.

The American church has yet to articulate a reason to oppose same sex marriage that does depends solely on our understanding of who God is. Who God is constitutes the core of our entire belief. Yet we keep framing our opposition in terms of commands and doctrines that may be explained without refernce to the essential nature of Whom we worship. As long as this is so, government is not forced to explicitly reject Him, and instead is allowed to do so under the guise of other legal principles related to religious freedoms.

The battle over same sex marriage and rights is done. But, if someone in this arena would cement their reasons for rejecting same sex marriage to the very nature of God then the governnment would have to overrule that belief as inconsequential. I would love to force that issue.

I think that dolfan raises some interesting points. I doubt that a justice or group of justices would want to argue against exercising belief based upon the very nature of God (well, except the 9th Circuit).

I think that this case will be appealed and might even make its way to the Supreme Court. Depending upon the views of the new justice, this could be a decisive case regarding religious liberties since Reynolds v. United States.

Personally, I think that the Court would permit sole proprietors to keep and honor their own religious beliefs in instances where their business service might require participation of something that violates those beliefs.

Consider the following: The school is in session on a Friday. Yet, one child is a member of a certain religious sect that observes a religious holiday on that day. The school district allows that child to celebrate the holiday -- even if other students are still required to attend school. The school understands the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Now, some would argue that this is because such exercise doesn't harm someone else. In Reynolds v. United States, the Court argued against extending free exercise of religion to the practice of polygamy. They stated that they feared casting a wide net by interpreting free exercise to any manner of practice would legalize even harmful practices in the name of religious exercise.

In this case, the only "harm" is in "discrimination" against someone wanting to buy flowers for a homosexual ceremony. In this case, the florist is forced to abandon his religious faith because his business is a service -- and that service forces him to become a participant in something that violates his religious belief.

It's my opinion that this would be akin to forcing a Muslim woman to remove her hijab to work at a retail store. Think about this: Could Planned Parenthood -- a non-profit that receives federal and state tax protections (and even receives taxpayer funding) -- be sued because they rejected Christians for employment on the basis of their religious beliefs?

I wonder if the Supreme Court would rule that sole proprietors or some other businesses would be permitted to define and exercise their religious principles so that they aren't forced to violate them. They could rule that Barronelle Stutzman couldn't decide who to sell flowers to BUT also rule that she cannot be penalized for refusing to participate in something that clearly violates her faith (in this case, participating in a homosexual ceremony). In other words, she can't discriminate when selling flowers but in participatory service related to the sale of those flowers.

If I remember correctly, the Colorado bakery didn't refuse to sell a cake but refused to decorate it in the celebration of a homosexual "marriage" ceremony. Such a ruling would favor both the baker and the florist.

I'm interested in your response, Tim.

Quote: "I would love to force that issue."

Tim, Would you consider acting as a defence for such a case? I mean it seriously, you might be the person to state the position from this aspect!

I just read this.....

"The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants,
Because they have trangressed the laws,
Changed the ordinance,
Broken the everlasting covenant. "

"Therefore the curse has devoured the earth,
And those who dwell in it are desolate...."
Isaiah 24:5-6.

Take note of "Changed the ordinance". That is where we are today. An ordinance is a fixed law that God established for all creation, such as making male and female with divine purpose. To change that ordinance is a reproach to God and brings a devastating curse upon the earth and it's inhabitants!

This whole chapter is clearly talking of the final end time period of judgement, aka the Great Tribulation, so no need to guess where we are very close to today. Yes there has always been homosexuality and perversion, but I don't think that there has ever been a time when men put into law such things we are seeing today, denying God's set ordinance of male and female and setting up an alternate ordinance.

Dave, I would jump at it, I think. But, it isn't my state. And, I will soon be moving to another state where I may not even practice law there.

Haven't read the Washington Sup. Ct. opinion. I am sure they say that it is not a de minimis harm because other businesses could deprive homosexuals of a basic freedom under state human rights laws and that, given the weight of the state's thumb on the scales that balance interests, well ... the math just doesn't favor Barronelle's love for Jesus as much as it does Bob's love for Bill.

The balancing tests courts use are satanic, even in their most benign application. Judges can reach whatever conclusion they want because they are in control of the scales. Again not the rule of law, but the law of the ruler.

There is no consistency of logic with the Judges logic.

Many Musicians refused to offer there service's for Trumps inauguration because they realized that by doing so that it would have been a stamp of approval for his presidency in which they did not support.

If I went to a bakery owned by Jehovah Witnesses I would expect them to sell me there common pastry items no matter what I wanted to do with them.
But it would be absolutely absurd of me to expect them to custom make me a Christmas Cake.

... the math just doesn't favor Barronelle's love for Jesus as much as it does Bob's love for Bill.

The balancing tests courts use are satanic, even in their most benign application. Judges can reach whatever conclusion they want because they are in control of the scales. Again not the rule of law, but the law of the ruler.

Very well said, Tim.

Despite the pushing-the-envelope use of executive orders over the last few years, I believe that the greatest power that a president exerts in this republic is the nomination of judges. This is especially important at the Supreme Court.

Recently, I listed to a discussion between Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia discussing their belief about the Constitution. I felt that Scalia did a great job explaining the basis of law under the Constitution. I found a clip from it:

http://tinyurl.com/breyer-v-scalia

I am prayerfully hopeful that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will not attempt to interpret the law on the basis of modern whims but on the framers' intent. I don't believe that ANY of the framers of the Constitution intended that the law could force a small business owner to violate the exercise of his or her religious faith. If this recent case goes to the Supreme Court, I hope that a Justice Gorsuch would agree.

Just skimmed about two-thirds of the opinion. Much is based on arguments over interpretaion of state statutory law and not the US Constitution. Just be aware that state human rights laws are really human wrongs laws.

Here is where Stutzmann's case stands on shaky ground. She admitted that her preparation of floral arrangements for atheist and Islamic weddings did not impact her beliefs and that she could and would do it. This goes to my original point: we are staking out our defense incorrectly. Not that we would win anyway --- I doubt we would. But, make the government say it. Make the government say that it doesn't matter who God is, that it only matters who the laws are written to favor and it only matters who the government is. Make them use their sovereignty as their exclamation that God is not. Because as it is, we are feeding ourselves to them and we are fools. We are being beaten down and not even saying AT ALL in this context who God is.

It matters more to the church's ability to even comprehend, let alone articulate, WHY homosexuality and same sex marriage are wrong. Barronelle Stutzmann doesn't truly understand why she is opposed to it. She just feels it would violate her conscience. Conscience is the essence of the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause. I don't care about mere conscience here. This concerns the true proclamation of who God is, who Jesus is, the nature of God, and His sovereign power over our own power to say who WE are. The church is selling out on this point because it genuinely thinks the Constitution values the gospel of Christ AS the gospel of Christ. It doesn't. We keep fighting the fight with our shoes nailed to the First Amendment jurisprudence and no one is gaining clearer understanding of who God is. We are being selfish, even in this.

Hi proudpapa,

I agree with what you're saying. I would suspect that it is common sense, but it doesn't seem that it is.

I would never expect a Jewish bakery to bake a cake celebrating a vile neo-Nazi club or an African American-owned restaurant to be forced to cater lunch at a KKK rally. This is an unthinkable violation of a person's conscience. It reeks of the same principle of asking a Muslim woman to remove her hijab for employment or a Jewish catering service to offer pork chops on their menu.

Like you said, musicians refused service for Trump's inauguration. The Huffington Post and other liberal websites frequently remove comments that they deem "offensive" -- even if they are simply religious in nature (and still on-topic). Many websites will ban members on the basis of their religious beliefs. I would argue that it is within their right to do so.

How is that any different than a florist refusing to participate in celebrating a homosexual "marriage" or celebrating an abortion? It is the consumer assaulting the business owner for his or her faith.

In Reynolds v. United States, the court stated that they feared a broad interpretation of religious exercise that could excuse any type of behavior with the excuse that it was the exercise of religion. By siding with the State of Washington, an even wider net can be cast.

Any person can insinuate that any denial of service is a violation of "equal protection." If a for-profit website like the Huffington Post bans a user, then they risk being sued for targeting that person for political reasons. Even a Christian bookstore, school or daycare could be sued for rejecting a homosexual or transgender person for a position of employment.

I just hope that the Supreme Court (with its new justice confirmed) will defend the rights of individuals -- even sole proprietors -- to adhere to the exercise of their faith when it isn't truly harmful in nature. If it is understood from the get go, then it would be difficult to sue for "harm" when a person states that they cannot violate their faith in a certain aspect.

Tim

You make good points. Yes I can see that this is the real issue. The kingdoms of the is earth are NOT YET the kigdoms of our God and His Christ!

Blaine, of course you are correct in saying this.

All legal complexities aside what if I just plain do not want to make this cake/arrange these flowers for this customer? Am I required to have a reason other then I just plain do not want to? Would I not be allowed to refuse providing this service because I just do not want to?

Sandra

Sandra, under Washington state law, if your plain not wanting to is motivated by your desire not to serve homosexuals, then you would be in violation of the law to refuse service.

Question is whether your not wanting to is worth the cost.

Your call.

Tim, is a merchant required to reveal why he does not want to service this customer? If you live in the south you know people are liable to lie if they do not want to do something or to get their way. And they get by with it. I would not advocate lying but it seems to me a person could refuse without giving a reason. In life I have learned that if I say "no" to something I am not required to explain it.

Reckon I am a bit dense....you do not have to say "amen!"

Sandra

Sandra,

Say you are a Washington florist who does wedding florals.. A homosexual couple wants to order a flower arrangement for their wedding. You know they are, of course, homosexual. You say, "No, thanks." They say, "Don't you sell florals for weddings?" You say, "Yes." They say, "But you won't sell to us?" You say, "No." They say, "If we were a man and woman, you would sell to us, right?"

You say....

Can't say no, because you do.
Can say nothing, or "leave my shop", but that looks, and IS, inculpatory silence and dodging the question.
Can say "It violates my conscience as a Christian." To which they would say, "State law says your conscience takes a back seat to our right to do business in this state. See you in court."

You get sued. You get all sorts of discovery demands from teir lawyers. You are repeatedly asked in 50 different ways about dozens of things that reveal your motivation: You just flatly don't want to do it because they are homosexual. You will be asked point blank also about your motivations, your views on other marriages that do not meet your personal understanding of biblical marriage, how many times you have refused service to those customers on that basis and how many times you didn't refuse service. You didn't bother keeping up with it, probably. And that's okay because who really does in a thriving flower shop and your business does not discriminate, right? Except, when the homosexuals walk in and ask for flowers for their wedding---then suddenly you start keeping score.

See?

I remember I was at work one day over a year ago and someone jokingly called me gay (you have to understand I work with some pretty rough people; and that wasn't the exact word he used), so I explained to him that homosexuality is a sin according to God's Word. Another of my co workers overheard what I said and tried to get me fired. The HR guy gave me a lecture that "homosexuality is a protected human right in Canada" etc. I explained that I understand Canadian law but those are my convictions and I'm not changing them. It wouldn't be the first time someone tried to fire me for being a christian. Another time my boss and his brother told me "we don't want to hear you talk about Jesus anymore" and I looked both of them in the eye and said "Jesus loves you, I love you, and I won't shut up; go ahead and fire me." They didn't.
Having said all that, I wouldn't want to run a business where you can get sued for your convictions.