Biden Just Handed Hamas a Huge Win
Kristi Noem's Dog Killing Fiasco Keeps Getting Worse
Ex-Palestinian Militant Obliterates Pro-Hamas Stooge on Piers Morgan's Show
RFK, Jr: My Brain Was Eaten By Worms But I'll Be Fine If...
Pro-Hamas Supporters Tried Ambushing a GOP Congresswoman. She Shut Them Down.
Biden’s a Boon for America’s Foes
Bibi Ignores Biden
'Commonsense Fails' Yet Again in Senate, Scott Says After Sanders Blocks His Antisemitism...
NY Reaches ‘Historic’ DEI Milestone During JFK Airport Construction
Here's What Lawmakers Are Planning Should ICC Issue Arrest Warrants Against Israeli Offici...
This Has Never Been About Justice
Why Communism and Socialism Fail
That's Some Wishful Thinking for Biden to Claim 'the Polling Data Has Been...
It Looks Like Jamaal Bowman Is STILL a Conspiracy Theorist
Defying Odds, Biden Figures Out a Way to Make Federal Permitting Law Even...
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