You Won’t Believe Who Just Cheered Iran’s Islamic Revolution
OpenAI Fires Executive Who Warned About 'Adult Mode'
In Defense of Female Inmates
Canada's MAiD Program Is About to Get Even More Horrifying
Backlash Grows Over the University of Notre Dame's Appointment of Pro-Abortion Professor
Somali Immigrants Are Now Claiming Parts of Minnesota Belong to Somalia
Missouri Bill Seeks to Protect Gun Owner Privacy
Gallup Admitted What Voters Already Know
Megyn Kelly’s Moral Blind Spot: Refusing to Condemn Candace Owens
Democrat Ohio Senate Hopeful Sherrod Brown Supports an AG Candidate Who Vowed to...
The Slaughter Continues in Iran, As Nikki Haley Encourages Trump to Make a...
Philadelphia Men Allegedly Used ChatGPT to Scam Minnesota Out of $3.5M
Queens Duo Charged in Alleged Decade-Long $120 Million Medicare Scam
White House Blasts Washington Post Over ‘Breaking’ Story Trump Announced Last Year
‘Customer Has Spoken’: Ford Motor Company Faces $11 Billion Hit on EV Investments
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