Victory for President Trump’s DOGE – ACLJ Amicus Brief Affirmed
Our Long Road to War With Iran
Globalize the Intifada? Authorities in the Netherlands Are Investigating Fire at Synagogue
What Can We Do About Islam in America?
More Questions Have Surfaced About Eric Swalwell's Eligibility to Run for California Gover...
All It Took for Democrats to Cave on DHS Funding Was Four Terrorist...
Fox News Just Found More Medicare Fraud in California
The New York City Council Is About to Make Things Even More Expensive...
Woman Launches GoFundMe to Help Her DoorDash Driver Finally Retire
They’re Losing. And They Know It.
Pete Hegseth Blasts Reports That the United States Did Not Plan on Iran...
All Six American Crewman Aboard Refueling Aircraft That Crashed in Iraq Confirmed Dead
Ex-Top Gun Pilot Says The Threat of Iranian Sleeper Cells 'Is Not a...
Even Obama's Former DHS Secretary Is Calling on Democrats to Fund DHS
California Scrambles to Bolster Drone Defenses After FBI Warns Iran May Target West...
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