Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Supreme Court on Friday declined to take up the case of a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding, leaving in place a decision that she broke state anti-discrimination laws.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have agreed to hear the case and review the decision. Four justices are needed for the court to take a case.
In 2018, the high court ordered Washington state courts to take a new look at the case involving florist Barronelle Stutzman and her Arlene’s Flowers business. That followed the justices’ decision in a different case involving a Colorado baker who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
After that review, the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state courts did not act with animosity toward religion when they ruled Stutzman broke the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing on religious grounds to provide flowers for the wedding of Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed.
Stutzman had sold Ingersoll flowers for nearly a decade and knew he was gay. But she contended his marriage went against her religious beliefs and she felt she could not provide services for the event.
Washington state law says businesses offering services to opposite-sex couples must provide the same service to same-sex couples.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
A good florist is an artist. When an artist says he/she does not want to do something, the demanding buyer may not get the love an artist puts in, meaning it may be fresh, but the vibrancy will be lacking. The whole case sounds like the florist got set up by a media group.
It doesn’t.
Theres plenty of other business that would have gladly taken the business.So why not go to one of them than to force someone to do something they dont want to.Theres nothing stopping someone of doing a terrible job just to prove the point that they dont wont your business. I wouldnt risk it, just go where your business is appreciated and wanted
Perhaps she needs to put a sign on her door indicating who she does or doesn’t consider to be appropriate clientele.
Mr. Stutzman vs. Washington State secular-humanists was never about having a wedding cake made…as has been pointed out, a majority of bakers in her hometown would have been more than happy to genuflect to the homosexual couple’s demands that they be validated as a married couple and gladly baked them a cake and taken their money…the love if money being the root of all evil. Rather, this was about using the government’s jack boot on a Christian’s neck to force her to validate their secular-humanist agenda, abdicating a primary government function of honoring and subsequently protecting the free practice of one’s religion.
I’ve been following Ms. Stutzman’s ordeal for years. Apparently, her long-time homosexual customer and friend was willing to respect her wishes and shop else where for a wedding cake, but when his/her/its to-be spouse got wind of it, he/her/it (it’s difficult keeping genders starlight nowadays) was incensed and went crying to more radical friends and, ultimately, “the government” for help shaming Ms. Stutzman for political and monetary gain.
Uhhhhh Bob if you have been following this for years then you would know she was a florist and not a wedding cake baker.
Rhea; you’re right! I was thinking about Jack Phillips at Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. in Colorado. Yes, I know Ms. Stutzman is a florist. Sorry.
Michael: No hate to spread here; look in the mirror for intolerance and hatred. You imply you wish something terrible had befallen me and I was possibly dead. I wouldn’t wish that on you no matter how ignorant you are.
Oh Bob P. Hadn’t heard from you in a while. Was hoping maybe you had…
Nevermind. Keep up the great work spreading the hate!