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.
6 comments:
I also agree with the decision of the Washington Supreme court as I also do not think that Stutzman has a right to discriminate in this manner even if she believes her right to freely exercise her religion is being violated. I think the mention of her business being separated from her religious beliefs is important because she does have the right to believe anything she wants but to act on them and violate the rights of other groups is wrong. Lastly, the slippery slope should be considered. If the state allows this discrimination people may use religion as a way to simply discriminate against any group they want to. Therefore, I think the court made the correct decision in ruling in favor of Ingersoll & Freed.
I similarly agree with the decision of the Washington Supreme Court's decision, as I don't see how providing a floral arrangement for a gay couple could be a valid violation of Establishment or Free Exercise clauses. It doesn't prevent the store owner from personally exercising her religion, and it also doesn't establish or prefer a specific religion over another - it aims to remain neutral by allowing people of any identity or background to receive the same services. Additionally, I thought the connection to Legally Blonde was actually really helpful and I completely agree. If this woman had been providing flowers to the man in question for years, then him being gay obviously hasn't impacted her religion in the past so it won't all of a sudden change now. Unless she asks every single customer their sexual orientation before she does business with them, it is an unfair claim of her to make that her religion prohibits her from serving gay individuals or couples.
Andrea, I completely agree with your opinion and analysis of this case. I too agree with the Washington Supreme Court's decision. Like Sofia, the comparison to the specificity used in Legally Blonde was so helpful in understanding the specifics of this case. The first amendment was not being violated here. It was not until the florist needed to prepare flowers for the marriage union that she had an issue, therefore this was discriminatory not a violation of the Free Exercise clause. I am curious how the US Supreme Court may rule on this.
I believe that the Washington Supreme Court made the right decision as previously stated in the comments. Stutzman's religion may see gay marriage as going against God, but she is not partaking in gay marriage, rather than providing a service that she has done for years prior. There should be a separation between religion and occupation in this case as Stutzman is discriminating against her costumers based off of her belief. If many other business owners acted against their own prejudices than many groups within society would not be allowed to obtain certain goods and services. The act of discrimination is highlighted when Stutzman stopped providing her service to a customer that has been loyal to her for years prior.
I agree with all of the comments and your opinion Andrea. There is not way that bye simply providing a flower arrangement that the floral shop owner is supporting gay marriage, but simply spreading happiness to everyone, which is appreciated by all people of all religions. Allowing outright discrimination of people simply because they do not share the same religious beliefs as you would not only open the door to the unproportionate discrimination of minorities, but the absence of a seperation between church and state.
This case reminded me of Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado when a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but in this we see the refusal of flowers. This is a very tricky issue but at the end of the day I believe that the first amendment should be utilized to protect minority groups. It is important to note the potential ramifications from this ruling. Business owners could refuse to provide a service to individuals who they do not see fit in their eyes using religious justification.
Post a Comment