Biden's HHS Sent Kids to Strip Clubs, Where They Were Pimped Out
Trump Has a New Attorney General Nominee
Is This Why Gaetz Withdrew His Name From Consideration for Attorney General?
Matt Gaetz Withdraws From Attorney General Nomination
ABC News Actually Attempts to Pin Laken Riley's Murder on Donald Trump in...
Here's Where MTG Will Fit Into the Trump Administration
Liberal Media Is Already Melting Down Over Pam Bondi
Dem Bob Casey Finally Concedes to Dave McCormick... Weeks After Election
Josh Hawley Alleges This Is Why Mayorkas, Wray Skipped Senate Hearing
MSNBC's Future a 'Big Concern' Among Staffers
AOC's Take on Banning Transgenders From Women's Restrooms Is Something Else
FEMA Director Denies, Denies, Denies
The System Finally Worked for Laken Riley -- Long After Her Entirely Avoidable...
Gun Ownership Is Growing Among This Group of Americans
We’ve Got an Update on Jussie Smollett…and You’re Not Going to Like It
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