Floral Free Exercise?

    Washington allowed the recognition of marriage between gay couples in the year 2012. As a 9-year customer of Arlene’s Flowers, Robert Ingersoll asked owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to design the floral arrangements for his future wedding shortly after he and his partner, Curt Freed, became engaged. Stutzman, a devout Christian, stated that she could not allow herself to design the floral arrangements for the couple nuptials citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as justification for her actions. She states her religion sees marriage as a sacred commitment between a man and a woman in the eyes of God; therefore, her providing a service in connection to their union would be considered a violation of her faith. The two men, distraught at their request being turned away, halted their intended large wedding plans and opted for a much more intimate ceremony to avoid any further discrimination that could possibly taint their marriage after being together almost for a decade.

The couple sought help from the American Civil Liberties Union to develop a lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, as they believed the discrimination they faced based on their sexual orientation was a violation of the way public businesses have an obligation to serve everyone with no conditions under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The American Civil Liberties Union, while tolerant and understanding toward the beliefs of Stutzman, stated that “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” (ACLU: Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers). The Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ingersoll, Freed, and the ACLU stating that since Arlene’s Flowers is a place of public accommodations, discrimination against the couple from Stutzman, even if it was connected to her religious beliefs, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (2019: Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers). 

Unhappy with the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling, Stutzman and her lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari or a review of her case. The Supreme Court received this request in tandem with the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case, while similar but not identical to that of Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers, dealt with a bakery owner refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery owner, Jack Phillips, stated that his religious beliefs forbade him to provide services in support of the union, similar to the beliefs of Stutzman. Ultimately, after this case made its way through the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court decided that the manner in which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluating Phillips’ reasoning for not making the wedding cake for the same-sex couple violated his First Amendment Right under the Free Exercise Clause. Again, while Phillips’ and Stutzman’s cases may seem similar, the Supreme Court decided that the case should be revisited by the state of Washington’s Supreme Court unlike that of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Washington decided “the adjudicators that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination. And, the Court determined, they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination was not privileged or excused by the federal or state constitutions”  (2019: Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers). This is technically the last legal update but Stutzman has again requested that the Supreme Court hear her case.

In an early 2000s cult-classic movie, a wise, blonde lawyer begged the question of why when it came to terms of specificity in regards to paternity rights of a sperm donor. This may seem silly, but I found myself asking a very similar question regarding specificity in the case of Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers just as Reese Witherspoon did in this scene of “Legally Blonde”. For 9 years Barronelle Stutzman provided services happily for her customer Robert Ingersoll, but it was only until she found out that one of the services he requested pertained to his marriage to his partner that she could not do her job. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was meant to protect minorities in this country and to curb discrimination. Stutzman corrupting the Free Exercise Clause to justify her discrimination which harmed the couple in a very emotional way, as they had to abandon plans they originally had out of fear of further potential intolerance, goes against the Washington Law Against Discrimination as well. The Free Exercise Clause allows you to believe in whatever you want, but it does not put yourself above the law when you own a business that is considered a place of public accommodation. If this were to happen in any sort of a place considered public accommodation, whether that be a school, restaurant, etc., would the same conversation be entertained? This is why I agree with the Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling in 2019.