This Town Filled Its Coffers With a Traffic Shakedown Scheme – Now They...
USAID You Want a Revolution?
Roy Cooper Dodges Tough Questions About His Deadly Soft-on-Crime Policies
Colorado Democrats Want to Trample First, Second Amendments With Latest Bill
Dan Patrick Was Right — Carrie Prejean Boller Had to Go
White House Religious Liberty Commission Member Removed After Hijacking Antisemitism Heari...
Federal Judge Blocks Pete Hegseth From Reducing Sen. Mark Kelly's Pay Over 'Seditious...
AG Pam Bondi Vows to Prosecute Threats Against Lawmakers, Even Across Party Lines
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
Georgia Man Sentenced to Over 3 Years in Prison for TikTok Threats to...
Walz Administration Claims $217M in Fraud After Prosecutor Pointed to Billions
2 Pakistani Nationals Charged in $10M Medicare Fraud Scheme
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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement