Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll have been long-time customers of Barronelle Stutzman's flower shop, Arlene's Flowers, in Richland, Washington. Ingersoll and Freed were engaged, and they were planning on having a same-sex wedding that fall. On March 1, Ingersoll went to the flower shop hoping to buy some flower arrangements for his wedding in September of 2013. When Baronelle found out, however, that a gay couple was planning on using her flower arrangements for their wedding, she denied to sell to them due to her religious beliefs. She politely said to them that she could not participate in the making of this ceremony, but referred him to three different florists that she knew did not have the same beliefs as her. At the end of the conversation the two even hugged before Ingersoll left. Once Ingersoll's partner, Freed, found out that the couple had been denied service due to them having a same-sex wedding, he took to Facebook to slander Miss Stutzman's flower shop. This resulted in Stutzman being berated on the media: she received hate mail, phone calls, and even death threats as a result of her actions.
The Washington state attorney general saw what had happened through the media and filed a lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman without being prompted by Ingersoll or Freed. The attorney general claimed that Stutzman violated the state public accommodations law by refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. The Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination against people of different sexual orientations and it specifically dictates that businesses may not refuse service to people due to their sexual orientation. In addition to the attorney general, the ACLU also sued Stutzman on behalf of Freed and Ingersoll. These separate lawsuits combined into one larger lawsuit that was filed and taken to Benton County Superior Court. The lawsuit was seeking damages for violating the same-sex couple's rights and the lawsuit stated that Stutzman could no longer discriminate against customers in the future. The Superior Court ruled in favor of Freed and Ingersoll.
After the ruling against Stutzman, the Alliance Defending Freedom "ADF" group petitioned the Washington state Supreme Court to take the case. The ADF stands in support of Stutzman, as they believe religion should be enough of a reason to deny one service in public accommodations.In March 2016, the Washington state Supreme Court took on the case and in February of 2017 they affirmed the decision made by the Superior Court. The Washington state Supreme Court stated that the government is allowed to force Stutzman to participate in events she does not religiously or morally agree with.
In July 2017, the ADF appealed the ruling on Stutzman's behalf and they petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take on the case. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Washington state Supreme Court, vacated the court's decision, and told the court to reconsider the lawsuit after the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was made.
On June 6, 2019, the Washington state Supreme Court took on the case again and ruled against her for the second time. The court reasoned that a business cannot plead religious exemption from a state law.
Stutzman and the ADF attorneys decided to file a petition on September 11, 2019 to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to review this case again. The Supreme Court has yet to review the case for a second time.
The ruling of this case is particularly important because it would allow the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm the decision made in Masterpiece Cakeshop. It would show that the First Amendment protects the freedom of all Americans and that those with conflicting religious views on marriage should be allowed to express and voice their opinions, as Strutzman does.
4 comments:
Due to the precedence of the similar case, Arlene's flowers should receive the same protection of First Amendment religious rights as other businesses have in the past which is why I agree with your opinion. This is a private business which allows ownership to determine how they would like to operate and provide their services. Constitutionally, Arlene's flowers should be protected by the free exercise clause and not be coerced away from religious beliefs.
Following the precedent and logic of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruling, I believe Arlene should be allowed to deny service to customers if she feels that it violates her free exercise of religion. While her actions may seem distasteful, as I personally find them to be, they are protected. She has a sincere religious belief that prevents her from supporting gay marriage with her flowers. She has provided flowers to the couple for nearly a decade showing that she does not deny service to gay people generally but instead specifically objects to playing a role in supporting the couple's marriage, which has deep religious significance for Christian people. The key here is that the state is trying to compel her to act in a manner that violates her religious beliefs. I do however believe that the case would be different if she denied service to gay people in general simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.
I agree with the conclusion that Amanda came to on this case. Due to the past case involving the cake shop, Arlene should be granted the same protection of her first amendment rights. I think an important part of this case is that she is not completely denying service to gay people, just when it is for a wedding (because it would be against her religious beliefs).
Due to the precedent created by the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, I do believe that if heard by the supreme court, they would rule in favor of Arlene and her flower shop. Most importantly she had referred the couples to other flower services who would assist the couple and this wasn't the end all be all for this couple. Constitutionally Arlene does run a private business and should have the right to refuse service especially- as mentioned in the blog and Olivia's comment- that this service is catering for a wedding of a same-sex partnership not simply selling to the individuals in a different manner.
Post a Comment