Barronelle Stutzman Gets Busted!

It is seen as an unusual move for the state, but Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against Arlene's Flowers, and its owner, Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, for refusing provide flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her "relationship with Jesus."

it was a few months back that longtime customers of Arleen's Flowers, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who had planned a wedding in the wake of marriage equality in Washington, were told by Stutzman that she wouldn't do business with them, or "participate in the wedding" because Jesus told her not to do it. Or something.

The lawsuit alleges that when Stutzman refused to provide goods or services on the basis of sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation, she was violating the state's anti-discrimination law and was, therefore, also violating laws designed to protect consumers. Since Stutzman operates a business that sells floral arrangements for opposite-sex weddings, Ferguson says she must provide that same service to same-sex couples.

It's pretty simple; it's discrimination.

The case, while unprecedented, will be the first major test of anti-discrimination protections since Washington voters approved marriage equality last fall. While Ferguson acknowledges that his filling is unprecedented because normally the suit would be filed by the discriminated party or by the Washington State Human Rights Commission, since neither group had taken action, he decided to use his legal authority to file suit as a consumer protection case since the discrimination occurred "in a consumer setting."

Ferguson offered to avoid a lawsuit by giving Stutzman an opportunity to sign a contract to "not engage" in the discriminatory practice in the future, but instead of agreeing to the terms, her lawyers decided to go to court and argue that discrimination isn't the issue, but that Barronelle Stutzman is entitled to exercise her religious conscience, that arranging flowers is an act of personal expression, and as such, any restriction on how and where she sells flowers infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech.

Except she doesn't do floral arrangements just for personal expression, she does it to make a living. And no one is asking that she condone or promote or celebrate a same-sex wedding by doing the flowers, they're just asking to not face discrimination when they place an order.

B. Craig Gourly, Stutzman's lawyer, said in his response to Ferguson:

"Although gay 'marriage' may be legal in Washington for the time being, the concept offends the conscious [sic] of Ms. Stutzman and many others in Washington."

And stop. First, the little quotes around the word marriage suggest that even her attorney doesn't think same-sex couples deserve equality. Secondly, and this gets me every time I read it, it's not a gay marriage, it's a marriage. And we're back: 

"Florists are universally engaged in the art of designing floral arrangements as an act of expression. Different floral arrangements are created for different events and sentiments, depending on a variety of factors. The florist's job is to create an arrangement that expresses the sentiment of the florist's clients."

And stop. Key word: client. She is not creating her own personal expression for her own personal use; she is creating the personal expression ordered by her clients. It's a business, Barronelle, not an art project. Continuing on:

"It is creative expression. If the law requires a florist create an expression of appreciation for gay 'marriage,' or any other matter that offends the conscious of the florist, it is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The state cannot require a florist to express appreciation for, or acceptance of gay 'marriage' any more than the state can require a musician to write a song about it, or an artist to paint a picture."

No one, no one, is asking that Barronelle Stutzman 'appreciate' the wedding, we're simply asking that, as a business person, she not use her personal beliefs, be they religious or moral or whatever, to decide what she can and cannot do for a client. Stutzman had no problems doing flowers for Ingersoll and Freed when they were not entitled to marriage rights, but now, suddenly, her Jesus is offended? Doesn't work that way. Plus, let's play the substitution game: if it was an interracial couple would it be okay for Stutzman to deny them service? A Muslim marriage? 

Discrimination against anyone is wrong.

h/t to The Dog's Mother for the update

source