It's Time for the Epstein Story to Be Buried
A New Poll Shows Old Media Resistance, and Nicolle Wallace Decides Which Country...
Is Free Speech Really the Highest Value?
Dan Patrick Was Right — Carrie Prejean Boller Had to Go
The Antisemitism Broken Record
Before Protesting ICE, Learn How Government Works
Republican Congress Looks Like a Democrat Majority on TV News
Immigration Is Shaking Up Political Parties in Britain, Europe and the US
Representing the United States on the World Stage Is a Privilege, Not a...
Older Generations Teach the Lost Art of Romance
Solving the Just About Unsolvable Russo-Ukrainian War
20 Alleged 'Free Money' Gang Members Indicted in Houston on RICO, Murder, and...
'Green New Scam' Over: Trump Eliminates 2009 EPA Rule That Fueled Unpopular EV...
Tim Walz Wants Taxpayers to Give $10M in Forgivable Loans to Riot-Torn Businesses
The SAVE Act Fights Ends When It Lands on Trump's Desk for Signature
Tipsheet

Washington State Supreme Court Rules Against Florist Who Chose Not to Decorate For Gay Wedding

Washington State Supreme Court Rules Against Florist Who Chose Not to Decorate For Gay Wedding

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against florist and grandmother Baronelle Stutzman in the closely watched religious freedom case of State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers. In its ruling, the court said that Stutzman and her small business, Arlene's Flowers, was guilty of "sexual orientation discrimination."

Advertisement

Stutzman explained in an op-ed this November that she and the plaintiff, Rob Ingersoll, had been friends for years and she never refused his design requests – until he asked her to create floral arrangements for his nuptials. She argued that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause gave her the right to decide not to design for the gay couple. She asked the court to uphold her constitutional rights.

“The state is trying to use his case to force me to create artistic expressions that violate my deepest beliefs,” she said at the time.

It wasn’t a question of why she wouldn’t design for his wedding it was that she couldn’t.

Stutzman's attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, said this court defeat is a painful slap in the face to the Constitution. 

“It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will," Waggoner said. "Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”

Stutzman will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos