Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene's Flowers

Shortly after the State of Washington began to recognize gay marriage in December 2012, Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll became engaged after being a couple since 2004. After scheduling their wedding ceremony for September of 2013 and during the planning process, the couple decided to take their business to Arlene’s Flowers for their floral arrangements since they have purchased from them multiple times in the past. On March 1, 2013, Robert went to Arlene’s Flowers to place his order when he was told that his order could not be fulfilled because of the owner’s religious beliefs. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and a member of the Southern Baptist Church, cited her Christian beliefs and claimed that she believed a marriage is between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible. Stutzman also stated that she believes that participating or allowing an employee of hers to create a custom floral arrangement for same-sex couples would therefore be the same as a direct endorsement of religion. When finding out that Arlene’s Flowers denied their business, the two stated, “We were very disappointed to be denied service by Arlene’s Flowers after doing business with them for so many years. Planning our wedding should have been a joyful time in our lives, but instead, we were hurt and saddened by being rejected for who we are” (Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene's Flowers). Following the disheartening news, the couple decided to stop planning a large wedding and to have a smaller wedding at their home due to fear of further discrimination from others and other businesses. 

In the first lawsuit involving Barronelle Stutzman, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed formulated a lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers, and they were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. They claimed that the business violated the anti-discrimination laws of the Washington state government. Elizabeth Gill, a senior attorney at the ACLU, argued that “Religious freedom is a fundamental part of America. But religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or to harm others because of who they are. When people, gay or straight, black, brown, or white go to a business, they should be treated equally and not be discriminated against” (Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene's Flowers). To be more specific, the ACLU claimed that Arlene’s Flowers had violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60.030). The law bars discrimination due to one’s sexual orientation. “It prohibits businesses from refusing to sell goods, merchandise, and services to any person because of their sexual orientation. The courts have found that businesses open to the general public may not violate anti-discrimination laws, even on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs” (Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene's Flowers). 

The American Civil Liberties Union took the lawsuit the whole way to the Washington Supreme Court. After hearing the case, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the refusal on the part of Arlene’s Flowers to sell to Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act. They then went on to claim Washington Law Against Discrimination’s public accommodations provision did not violate Stutzman’s First Amendment rights. 

Once this ruling was decided upon, Stutzman and her attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and asked them to hear the case. During this time, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission made its way to the United States Supreme Court and was ruled on in June 2018. A similar situation occurred in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where Charlie Craig and David Mullins decided to purchase their custom wedding cake through Masterpiece Cakeshop run by Jack C. Phillips. Phillips denied their business because he decided that he will not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings due to his religious beliefs. Charlie Craig and David Mullins decided to file charges of discrimination with the support of the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Once the case reached the Supreme Court in 2018, they ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s evaluation of Phillip's reasoning for declining to make the wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause. With this ruling, the Supreme Court advised the Washington Supreme Court to re-evaluate their ruling in Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers by granting the petition for a writ of certiorari, told them to vacate the judgment, and remanded the case back to the Washington Supreme Court. In June of 2019, after revisiting the case, the Washington Supreme Court again ruled against Stutzman and claimed that they found no evidence of religious amicus. This ruling has resulted in Stutzman’s attorneys again requesting the United States Supreme Court to hear her case. 

After reading the above information, I find myself agreeing with both rulings in the Washington Supreme Court because by discriminating against Ingersoll and Freed, Stutzman violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act. Stutzman had sold floral arrangements to Ingersoll numerous times prior to the knowledge of their sexual orientation. Once she had gained this knowledge, she made it clear that this time, due to the wedding, it violated her religious beliefs. At no other point of sale did her religious beliefs impede on their business transactions. With this in mind, Stutzman clearly discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, which violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act. If this case were to be taken to the United States Supreme Court today, I think that they would rule in favor of Barronelle Stutzman. This is due to the precedent set in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.