KJP Has a Meltdown Over Questions About Lack of FEMA Funding
REMINDER: What the White House Said About Russia's 'Merchant of Death' When Biden...
Atlantic Staff Writer Wrecks Himself Attacking Our Own Katie Pavlich Over Helene Tweets
For Some Reason, Karine Jean-Pierre Got a Promotion
Kamala on '60 Minutes' Delivers Zero Minutes of Logic, Stephanopoulos Has Selective Rhetor...
Anniversary of 10/7 Makes Me Glad for Gun Rights in America
What 'Misinformation' Assaults on First Amendment Mean for Second
Navigating the 2024 Election Amid North Carolina’s Post-Hurricane Helene Crisis
Cue the Outrage As Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates State Abortion Ban
Tillis Sets the Record Straight on Harris Campaign Taking His Words Out of...
The Media Sure Are Noticing a Key Concern About the Harris Campaign
Here's Why This Former Democratic Congressman Endorsed Trump on Anniversary of October 7
Melania Trump Tried to Donate to a University to Help Foster Kids. Here's...
Tom Cotton Destroys NBC's Kristen Welker When She Brings Up 'Misinformation' About FEMA...
Spain's First-Ever Team of 'Trans Men' Competed in Men's Soccer. It Turned Out...
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