State Police Clash With Pro-Hamas Thugs at the University of Virginia
Here's the Security Incident That Occured at the White House Last Night
Here's a Liberal Policy That Now Has Bill Maher 'Incensed'
Thank God For Straight White Men
Sanity’s Best Revenge
The Left, Win or Lose, Will Never Give Up
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 216: Malachi the Messianic Messenger - Hebrew’s Bible...
Politico Reveals Why Liberal Late-Night Hosts Protect Biden Despite TV-Worthy Gaffes
Is Joe Biden Really Bragging About Going Against Supreme Court on Student Debt?
Pro-Terrorism Agitators Ruin Graduation Ceremonies Nationwide
Liberty Will Be Necessary for Us to Settle in Space
Behaving Badly: Texas has a Better Way to Deal with Campus Protests
The Latest Biden Insanity: Import Hamas Terrorists
Is the VA Lying About Capacity to Protect a Good Ole Boy System?
Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants
Tipsheet

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement