Trump’s Texas Deal Dilemma
It’s Not Islamophobia, It’s Islamo-I’m-Sick-of-Hearing-About-It
CNN Proves False Narratives Are a Network Feature; WaPo Upset Photographers It Does...
Bombshell Federal Lawsuit Says Teachers Abused Students for Decades in Small Wisconsin Sch...
What If Those Iranian Bombs Had Nuclear Warheads
Between a Mullah and a Hard Place
Obama's Race-Hustling Eulogy at a Race Hustler's Funeral
The Religious, the Secular and the Truth
Democrats’ Latest Sacrificial Pawns
If Virginia Is for Lovers, There Is No Place for Tyrants
Florida Teens Accused of Plotting to Kill Classmate to Resurrect Sandy Hook Shooter
Farm Labor Company Operator Pleads Guilty to RICO Charge in Worker Exploitation Case
Venezuelan Man Accused of Assaulting Federal Agent, Grabbing Gun During Arrest in Michigan
This Major Insurance Company Agreed to Pay $117M Over Allegedly Overcharging Medicare for...
James Carville Admits He Has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' — Says He Prays for...
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