It’s Their Own Fault We No Longer Default to Respect
Did This Issue Catapult Japanese Conservatives to a Landslide Win in Their Elections?
US Women's Hockey Team Clubbed the Canadians Like Baby Seals Yesterday. Oh, and...
Of Course, This GOP Senator Stabbed Us in the Back on Election Integrity
Why This Girl Wrestler Had Shock and Horror All Over Her Face in...
Bill Maher Reveals Why He Got the COVID Vaccine...and He's Rather Annoyed About...
Iran Is Preparing for a US Airstrike – Here's What Trump Is Saying
The Trump Economy Continues to Roar With 'Blockbuster' January Jobs Report
TX State Rep. Harrison Calls for Gene Wu to Be Stripped of Committee...
Check Out This Ridiculous Axios Headline About Plummeting Crime Rates
Police Released Person of Interest Detained in Guthrie Disappearance. Here's What We Know.
Report: The FAA Just Closed El Paso Airspace for Ten Days Over 'Security...
Public Opinion: A Tyrant Against Hard Decisions
Misconduct Rampant: America’s Leaders Increasingly Prioritize Agendas Over Fairness, Laws
2026 Olympics: Let’s Talk About Crotch Scandals
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