From Breitbart to Backroads
Trump to Small Businesses: 'You're the Lifeblood of the American Economy'
White House Was Locked Down Today. Here's What Happened.
School Hired Registered Sex Offender, Then He Assaulted a 10-Year-Old Girl
So This Is Why Tim Walz Backs Graham Platner
CNN Allows a Dem Candidate to Defy Her Autobiography, and 60 Minutes Attacks...
While Crime and Islamism Run Wild in the UK, Authorities Crack Down on...
Guess Why Rolling Stone Knocked Eric Clapton Out of the Top Ten Guitarists...
Real Problems With Novelty Signs and Talking Tough About Trespassers
Guys, Its Just a Ballroom: Progressive Podcaster Says That Trump's Ballroom Will Be...
A Lesson on Capitalism: Kevin O'Leary Explains Why the End of Spirit Airlines...
Here's the Background on the Two American Soldiers Who Went Missing Over the...
This University in Texas Says They're Still Peddling DEI
Wait, a Judge Did What to the Guy Who Tried to Assassinate Trump?
Todd Blanche Just Gave a Huge Update in the Case Against James Comey
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