Thursday, April 11, 2013

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

17 comments:

  1. she did break the law, now she has to pay

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am deeply offended by her lawyer's comments.

    wrong is wrong is wrong. period. sue her ass!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The *art* version of this incident is rather breathtaking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Those deluded "God is on MY side" types are always a pain in the neck!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous12:44 PM

    It is her own personal business, and there are others they can go to so why pick on her just because she doesn't want to serve them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's the deal Anonymous: she HAS served them as a gay couple for YEARS. Took their money happily for years, until marriage equality passed and then suddenly her Baby Jeebus told her to stop flowering The Gays.
    It's discrimination. She's in a business and is discriminating against her clients.
    It's no different than 'Straights Only' rules of the 20th century.
    And, I imagine that if a gay florist had refused to do the flowers for a Baptist wedding, we'd be hearing all sorts of shouts about discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  7. She has a business license from the state and has affirmed that she will operate within the commerce laws of the state.
    She did not.
    She must and will suffer the consequences of her infraction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous3:49 PM

    It's discrimination. If she don't like it, move the flower shop to Texas or Tennessee where they encourage -- I mean, tolerate that bigoted thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Helen4:27 PM

    What kind of name is Baronnelle? Sounds rather FRENCH to me! I lie; it doesn't, no self respecting French person would call themselves such a ridiculous name. Perhaps the name has psychologically infected her brain?
    Result homophobia.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous8:08 PM


    Sodomits destroyed Sodom because of there sin. There are some things God will not over look.
    America is next on the list. When the fire rains down people, it will be to late to repent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So what would make it different if she refused to sell flowers to an adult polygamous couple who were planning their wedding?
    There's no more proof that people are born homosexual then there is that people are born polygamist.
    So again, if it was a polgygamist couple, what would make it different?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous6:23 PM

    She has as much right to refuse service as the gay couple has the right to be gay. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is a bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Anon
    I'll keep this simple, because it appears you only understand simple:

    #1: Gay people are born gay; Stutzman chose to be anti-gay. PERIOD

    #2: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Washington state; Stutzman, therefore, broke the law. PERIOD

    #3: I'm guessing if her so-called faith told her that Jews were bad people, or Muslims were awful, she should be allowed to discriminate against them? Or is it just The Gays with which you, and people like Stutzman, have a problem? If that's the case, then you're the bigot.

    M'kay?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous12:30 PM

    She was friends with the two gay men. She is now being utterly destroyed by them financially. How is this necessary? What does this do to make them feel better? This is purely vengeance. To take not only all of her money from her business, but all of her personal money because they didn't just go to a florist happy to make their flowers? Doesn't she have the right as a personal business owner to refuse service? This used to be true in the past. She doesn't discriminate against gay people, she feels she is participating in their wedding by providing part of their wedding supplies, this is different than merely selling them other flowers. I am disturbed that they feel they will only be happy if they utterly destroy this woman.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anon
    I don't believe she was friends with this couple; they were longtime customers of hers.

    But, let's say they were friends. Then, in the name of God, she shunned them, and refused to perform a service of her business because all of the sudden she didn't like what they were doing: which was getting legally married in Washington as was their right.

    That's not very friendly.

    And no one is taking her business or her home or any of her money. She was asked to pay a $2,000 fine because she broke the law by discriminating against the couple.
    She is not losing her home or business or her money. That is a lie being spread by anti-LGBT hate groups.

    And she does not have the right to refuse service based on sexual orientation; juts like race, age, gender, ethnicity, discrimination based on sexual orientation is a crime.

    She was NOT participating in their wedding. She was arranging and delivering flowers. She wasn't there to celebrate, sing, dance, eat, rejoice; she was a business person performing a business service and nothing more.

    And, again, no one is destroying her; she is being accused of breaking the law, plain and simple.

    Discrimination is wrong, and, in Washington, thankfully, it's illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous12:06 PM

    Bible believing Christians who believe in the holiness of matrimony, who believe participation in same sex weddings is a sin against God will just have to get out of the marriage business - photographers, bakers, florists, banquet facilities and such will all be run out of business in the name of discrimination - those who believe such will also be run out of corporate America - the only place they will be allowed to believe in what they do is the space between thier ears and thier churches (for now). The simple fact is liberty of conscience for minority believers is an america relic of days gone by - welcome to a brave new world

    ReplyDelete
  17. "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."

    Right her beliefs don't change the facts nor the legal status of gay marraige. It doesn't involve opinion but actual events.

    And before anyone else says anything, no one is asking them to give their approval towards something that is going to happen irregardless of their beliefs. The fact they can make custom orders based on the desires of customers means their "personal opinion" can only go so far. It isn't anything hateful towards Christians, since there are Christains who support homosexuality and gay marraige. She can make her own flower arrangements based on her own beliefs on her own time.

    ReplyDelete

Say anything, but keep it civil .......