Tuesday, October 27, 2020

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. 







5 comments:

  1. I find myself disagreeing with the author here. While I personally support gay marriage and would not have turned them away myself, this case is the same exact situation as the Colorado baker. The only difference is that the same-sex couple in this case had been served by Stutzman before, making it very clear why she turned them away, yet this was not a secret in the Colorado baker case either. In both cases, the shop owner openly admitted the basis on which the customer was being turned away. Same-sex marriage is considered a sin in many branches of Christianity, thus, asking a shop owner to provide a product/service for such a marriage puts them in direct conflict between their religion and business. A privately-owned business has the right to decide which patrons they will serve; while I wish I could, unfortunately I cannot find any way to make a steady legal case which goes against the shop owner.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with your analysis, I think you are spot on in your distinction between laws that are neutral versus hostile toward religion. A question I bring up a lot is what makes a religion? I take it to be generically any system of beliefs, moral or otherwise that people operate under. It does not have to be centered around a deity in the traditional sense, it could be a personal code or some set of shared belief in a community or whatever. Should this be the case, than how are the systems and customs of the irreligious any different than the religious? I don’t think that there is a difference and each of these groups will always be fighting for power, because there is only so much room in government to represent each of them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Megan to an extent on the nature and outcome of this case. Arlene's flowers denying service to Ingersoll and Freed was blatant discrimination. However, Arlene's Flowers do have the ability to argue that this is an example of them practicing their religion, as protected under the First Amendment. Although I don't personally agree with their actions, this is a very popular belief within Christianity and organized religion as well. However, the state of Washington's Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act is very important and necessarily applied here as well, especially because Arelene's flowers is its own company and not a non-profit that is funded by the state. I do think that Constitutional rights take precedent over state laws, but at the same time, I can also see why the state court ruled the way they did.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with the blog. The test to determine if the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act are constitutional is assessing whether the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination. If states allowed this behavior, discrimination against all groups would be rampant and people would not know if they could obtain services or merchandise. This would be too onerous and discriminatory. Therefore, the law is constitutional. Unfortunately, under stare decisis the Supreme Court will likely rule that the law is not constitutional based on the holding of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think this analysis is spot on. The entire purpose of the WLADCPA is to tailor the interests of the state to protect oppressed groups. Religious rights are important and obviously the state has an interest in protecting them, but the state also has an interest in ensuring that the rights of minorities are protected so they must engage in a balancing act. When the state makes guidelines as they did, they are well within their rights to then enforce these guidelines. Business owners agree to sacrifice certain practices in exchange for the state's permission to operate and make money. If they want to discriminate against LGBT customers that's within their rights but they can't also operate a business while they do it.

    ReplyDelete