Monday, February 5, 2018

Flower Fiasco

Strikingly similar to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case currently under review by the Supreme Court, Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington deals with the balance between freedom to exercise religion and discrimination. 

Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, has been reported to have a long history of serving and employing homosexuals through her business.  She is also a Christian, and in 2013 she cited  her "relationship with Jesus Christ," as her reason for refusing longtime customer Robert Ingersoll, and his partner Curt Freed service for his upcoming wedding. 

She was sued by the Washington State Attorney and the American Civil Liberties Union, on the grounds of  consumer protection and discrimination respectively, the case was then consolidated into 
Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington. Stutzman's defense was based in free speech, free exercise, free association, and also in the state's constitution, which states, "Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment." On February 16, 2017, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman, she had violated anti-discriminatory laws and that her flowers do not endorse same sex marriage. From the majority summery;  "The Superior Court granted judgment to the State and the couple, rejecting all of Stutzman's claims. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed."

Stutzman has appealed to the Supreme Court. 
The Alliance Defending Freedom has picked up her case and argues similarly to the Cakeshop case. They argue that her artistic expression and religious expression are being violated by the state of Washington. The Alliance Defending Freedom's has declared that its mission is "to protect the right of creative professionals to use their God-given talents in ways that are consistent with their beliefs." The alliance is advocating combining the Cakeshop and Flower cases as they are similar in nature. 

There is no federal law forbidding discrimination against gay couples, although states and counties like Washington have forbidden it. That being said cases like this one have wide ranging influence, as if the Cakeshop and Flowershop were found not-guilty, it may start a slippery slope involving how much freedom of expression overrides discrimination laws. What if someone claimed that they could't serve African- American's due to their religious beliefs? If religious expression triumphs over anti-discrimination against gay couples, is the 1965 Civil Rights Act at risk of being overruled in favor of the free expression clause?

I do not agree with  Stutzman's actions, but I do respect her claims. She is an artist by trade and her business is being threatened by the State. Jefferson would agree with the Judge that ruled her flower arrangements as not endorsing homosexual marriage, as he believe the magistrates' job was to step in in matters of religious conflict.  Reynolds v. United States also established that the government could regulate practices of the individual, as long as beliefs are not forced on them. With these precedents and overall speculation it seems unlikely that a case like this or the Cakeshop case will do well in the court. Any case that will potentially allow more discrimination is unlikely to succeed in today's climate. That being said, if the case goes either way without the judges allowing a slippery slope going either way, so allowing discrimination charges to be leveraged against legitimate denials of service or allowing discrimination due to free exercise of 
religion I will be satisfied. I think a part of the Flowershop cases's downfall was the direct admittance of not serving the gay couple due to heir sexuality, instead of claiming some other reason for the lack of service. This may just have been a case that Washington pursued to fight de jure discrimination. 

I believe that this case and the Cakeshop case will not succeed due to precedents in past cases, although it may seem like the wording of the first amendment itself defends the owners. Although the first amendment is the ultimate jurisdiction on the matter, it is undefined and its meaning has been improved upon, generally at the expense of religious expression. Throughout our nation's history, it seems like we are more adherent to Jefferson's ideals in state over religious practice. The only unknown factor may be Judge Gorsuch's reading of the Constitution being very grounded in textualism.
 

2 comments:

Unknown said...

I wrote my own blog post last week on the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the parallel case to Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington. When reading the case of the Colorado baker, I leaned toward the notion that an artist, including a baker and a florist, has the right to determine how and for whom they want to create their work. However, reading about a second case dealing with discrimination versus freedom of religious expression, I feel more wary of the slippery slope formed if these cases succeed. I am in agreement with Danny’s post that we are once again dealing with the beliefs of a religion and the practice of it. As pointed out, the law due to the case Reynolds v. United States, can prohibit the practice of religious beliefs as long as it is not prohibiting the beliefs themselves. So shouldn’t it prohibit the practice of the florist/baker from turning down people of a certain sexual orientation? In addition, if Minersville School District v. Gobitis can prevent the passive action of denying to salute the American flag in school due to religious beliefs, should the passive action of denying a certain type of customer due to religious beliefs be prohibited? May I add that the Minersville School District v. Gobitis case took place during a time period extremely afraid of disunity in our nation, and the case of Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington takes place in an America afraid of discrimination.

Max K said...

A number of blog posts like this one have touched on scenarios similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and it seems as though these situations will continue until the Supreme Court makes their decision. I disagree with the slippery slope argument that religious freedoms will soon become an excuse for different sorts of illegal discrimination. In both this and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the private business owners have extensive track records of doing business with the groups of individuals with which they are supposedly discriminating against. This fact alone proves that there is no malice behind their decision to disassociate. Rather they are exercising a freedom from association due to religious objections. Therefore I cannot see how their behavior is prejudicial. In a non-religious example, should a speech writer be coerced by the government to write a speech which comes into conflict with their morals and beliefs? This is in no way similar to an individual refusing service based on race. It is a private business refusing to provide a creative service to represent her business at a ceremony which comes into conflict with the religious beliefs of a business owner.