Good News: Barronelle Stutzman's Hate Cost her $5,000 and Her Job

I have been blogging about Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Washington, for years now, and I’m hoping this will be the last time.

Back story: Barronelle had a gay coulee, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who used her business for a decade, buying flowers for their birthdays, for their anniversary, for holidays, for condolences, and, well, just because. And when marriage equality came to Washington state, Ingersoll and Freed went to Arlene’s Flowers to order for their wedding, and that’s when Barronelle told them that her religion forbid her from selling flowers to gay men for their wedding.

And thus the lawsuits began; Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed sued for discrimination based on sexual orientation, and Barronelle Stutzman whined about the Baby Jeebus telling her not to sell flowers to The Gays … well, sell to them for everything but their wedding. The case went back and forth and round and round and now, it finally looks like it’s over, eight years after it started.

A settlement agreement has been secured between the anti-LGBTQ+ Alliance Defending Freedom and the ACLU which finally ends that lawsuit brought against Stutzman without forcing her to act against her religious beliefs or to pay potentially ruinous attorneys’ fees—a threat she has endured for years.

But all is not golden for Stutzman; she will retire from the business she owns—meaning her bigotry is no longer on display—and she will withdraw a pending petition for rehearing at the Supreme Court –her case was heard once and she lost because … hate—and she must pau Ingersoll and she must pay Ingersoll and Freed $5,000.

Not a lot of money but, just think, if Barronelle Stutzman hadn’t been such a hate-filled bigot, she might have made a few thousand dollars for Ingersoll and Freed for their wedding, and then continued to make more from them over these last eight years, but, instead, she has to cough up the coins.

Let me say it as simply as I can for people like Barronelle Stutzman: if a gay couple asks you to bake a cake, or make a dress, or take some photos, or rent them a venue, for their wedding there are not asking you to take part in their event. They are simply making a business transaction. It only becomes an issue when y’all whip out your Bibles, which, if you read carefully, says nothing about denying services to gay couples who wish to marry.

You read the Bible wrong and spewed hate, and in the long run, you lost.

Good.

Bye.

Barronelle Stutzman Gets Busted!

UPDATE: Judge Rules Against Florist Who Refused Service To Gay Couple

An Open Letter To Barronelle Stutzman

I Didn't Say It ....

Barronelle Stutzman Is Still Whining And Lying

Bobservations

Barronelle Stutzman Is Still Whining And Lying

Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, you might remember, is the florist who sold flowers to gay couple Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed for their gay birthdays and gay anniversaries and gay Christmases and gay holidays but then refused to sell them flowers for their gay wedding because … gay.

And so they sued for discrimination and she cried foul; she lost the case and she cried Christian persecution; she was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and says Rob and Curt tried to take away her home and business.

And now she’s at it again, writing whining in an opted for the Seattle Times, entitled “Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowersstory,” and still trying to explain why her special brand of bigotry is okay.

In her op-ed she says that she and Rob Ingersoll were friends, and they shared a love for flowers and the creativity of flower arranging; she also says she knew that he was in a relationship with a man, and wants us all to know that he knew she was a Christian. That might be true, but I imagine that, after buying flowers from her for ten years, he didn’t know she was a bigot because, for those ten years, she loved working with Rob and sharing ideas for floral arrangements for the special events in his life … well, except for possibly the most special event in his life, the legal marriage to the man he loved and his request that she design something special:

“If all he’d asked for were prearranged flowers, I’d gladly have provided them. If the celebration were for his partner’s birthday, I’d have been delighted to pour my best into the challenge. But as a Christian, weddings have a particular significance.

Marriage does celebrate two people’s love for one another, but its sacred meaning goes far beyond that. Surely without intending to do so, Rob was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ. As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me. Without Christ, I can do nothing.”

Actually, you dim bulb, he was asking you to do what you’d been doing for him for years: create a flower arrangement. Your religion should have no play in that whatsoever and I bet the Baby Jeebus would come down on my side of that argument because of that whole “Judge not” business in the Bible.

But Barronelle judges; she then says Rob told her that he understood her position, and that she suggested three other florists in the neighborhood who weren’t as narrow-minded and bigoted and anti-gay. And then he sued …

“For artists, creativity is the very core of who we are. Our ability to draw on our deepest beliefs and unique sensibilities enables us to create one-of-a-kind works of art and works of the heart. An artist really can’t separate his or her work from the soul. Even if I’d tried to do that for Rob, some part of my heart would not really have been in what I was doing. A man with Rob’s artistic eye would have seen that and been disappointed.”

So, because Rob is creative he should understand bigotry and intolerance? He should understand that breaking the law because you believe the Baby Jeebus told you so is okay? It’s not, Barronelle, and as much as you whine and try to rewrite history it’s not ever going to be okay. I will say this again to you in the hopes that you might get it this time and just shut your yap:

You were not asked to partake in their wedding; you were not an invited guest; you were not any part of their wedding. Your flowers were to be included in the ceremony and they have nothing to do with your faith whatsoever. It’s flowers; it’s a service you provide to anyone and everyone who comes into your shop because that’s why you opened a shop and because it’s the law that you not discriminate against anyone.

And then she plays that tired card that Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed were suing her to take her business and her home and her livelihood which is an outright lie.

“I’ve never questioned Rob’s and Curt Freed’s right to live out their beliefs. And I wouldn’t have done anything to keep them from getting married, or even getting flowers. Even setting aside my warm feelings for them, I wouldn’t have deliberately taken actions that would mean the end of being able to do the work I love or risk my family’s home and savings.”

You’re a liar, Barronelle Stutzman; the fine you were ordered to pay was a thousand dollars … not your home … not your business … not your life. I don’t think the Baby Jeebus looks too kindly on liars.

“This case is not about refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation or dislike for another person who is preciously created in God’s image. I sold flowers to Rob for years. I helped him find someone else to design his wedding arrangements. I count him as a friend.”

I love that she keeps saying she sold flowers to Rob for years, but this one time, for this one event, it was suddenly just too much; she cannot play the “I have no problem with gay people getting married” and then refuse service to them. But let’s listen to her at the end:

“I want to believe that a state as diverse as Washington, with our long commitment to personal and religious freedoms, would be as willing to honor my right to make those kinds of choices as it is to honor Rob’s right to make his. That’s not endorsing a negative thing, as I’ve been accused of doing. It’s promoting good things: reason, fairness and mutual tolerance.”

Oh Siddown, you fool. You have a right to your own personal religious freedoms, you just cannot …. And I’ll say it slowly so you might finally understand it:

You        cannot        use        your         personal        religious        beliefs       to         deny         service        at       your       public        business        to       anyone.

Seriously, Barronelle. Stop talking. Stop trying to make yourself the victim here. You’re a bigot hiding behind the robes of Jesus and, once again, he’s very disappointed in you.

Seattle Times

An Open Letter To Barronelle Stutzman

Dear Barronelle Stutzman,

Can you just stop, please? Stop making yourself sound like a victim when you were the one doing the discriminating?

We all know that you knew this gay couple; that you sold them flowers for every event — Christmas, birthdays, anniversaries — for years, but the minute they decided to get legally married, and use your business — your public business — for their wedding flowers, suddenly it was “all about The Gays.”

Here’s the deal, Barronelle: discrimination is illegal in Washington; you cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of their race, age, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

But.You.Did. You decided that all of the sudden the Baby Jeebus didn’t want you to serve this gay couple because, ick, they were getting married. It was okay to sell them flowers any other day of the year, but not on their wedding day. That was discriminatory, and it’s wrong, and rude and stupid and illegal.

So, the state sued you, and the Washington state attorney general offered to settle the discrimination case if you paid a fine of $2,000 fine and stopped discriminating against same-sex couples; same-sex couples who, by the way, would probably never come to you at all given your history so, take that hit to your business, dear.

But you rejected the settlement and now you’re the Poster Victim for all the anti-LGBT groups out there; and you’re speaking at their events and letting them push forward their lies that the state of Washington and/or that same-sex couple you discriminated against are trying to take your business, your home, and all of your money.

That’s a lie. Stop it. Stop letting people spread that lie. And stop trying to appeal the ruling because you’re going to lose there as well. That became quite clear after Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom rejected your argument that your actions in discriminating against that same-sex couple were protected by freedoms of speech and religion.

Not so, dear. The First Amendment protects religious beliefs but it doesn’t necessarily protect the actions one takes on those beliefs — like in denying services for which your publicly run business was created.

So, you’ll lose, and when you do, you, as the loser, may be forced to pay damages and legal fees for both that same-sex couple and the state of Washington that far exceed the attorney general’s offer of $2,000; two thousand dollars and a payment of $1 for legal fees if you would just agree not to discriminate against same-sex couples any longer.

But you’d rather discriminate and hate and couch it in your narrow view of the Bible.

What would Jesus say about that?

UPDATE: Judge Rules Against Florist Who Refused Service To Gay Couple

I’ve written about Barronelle Stutzman and her Richland Washington flower shop, Arlene’s Flowers, several times, the first time almost two years ago, so let’s replay the back-story first:

Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed live in Washington, and, having been together for a while, and since Washington made all of its citizens equal, they decided to get married in September 2013.

And, since during their nearly decade-long relationship they ordered special occasion flowers — birthdays, anniversaries, condolences and such — from Arlene's Flowers, they decided to use the same florist for their wedding flowers, But Arlene’s owner, and that would be Barronelle Stutzman, turned them down because, as she says:

"Rob came into the store and was talking about getting married. I told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ that I couldn't do his wedding."

Robert Ingersoll talked with Stutzman a bit, respectfully, but he felt hurt by the rejection:

"It really hurt because it was somebody I knew. We laid awake all night Saturday. It was eating at our souls. There was never a question she'd be the one to do our flowers. She does amazing work."

Ingersoll wrote a Facebook post about their disappointment in Stutzman and Arlene's Flowers, and suddenly the story was everywhere, with people leaving comments, both positive and critical of the florist who won't do same-sex weddings.

Many pointed out that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers for the Ingersoll-Freed wedding just might be against Washington law because, while state law exempts religious organizations from having to perform same-sex weddings, it doesn't allow the same exemptions for businesses.

All of which lead to a lawsuit when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against Arlene's Flowers, Barronelle Stutzman, for refusing provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

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.

This all went back and forth about The Gays and the baby Jeebus and flowers and cakes and weddings and religion and public businesses, and it is still going on because last week Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom decided that the state of Washington has the authority to bring a consumer protection lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman for refusing to do a floral arrangement for The Gays; he also ruled that Stutzman can be held personally liable for violating the Consumer Protection Act.

The judge still has two more motions to rule on in the lawsuit, including whether the facts case show the florist violated the Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

Stutzman’s lawyers are saying she declined not because of the couple’s sexual orientation, but because of her religious views on marriage.

But it was her views on marriage of a gay couple, a couple with a different sexual orientation than, allegedly, her own, so that argument is kind of ridiculous; if she didn’t provide flowers because of her views on marriage wouldn’t that mean she wouldn’t provide flowers for straight couples, too?

Look, it boils down to this: the state attorney general is asking for a permanent injunction requiring Stutzman and her shop to comply with the consumer protection law. Simple. You sell flowers, sell flowers, and keep the Baby Jeebus out of it.

I mean, does she check the religious status of all her customers? Does she find out what all the arrangements are for before she makes them? She doesn’t think The Gays should be married because, in her tiny head the Baby Jeebus told her so, but she can’t let the Baby Jeebus tell her how to run her business.

This would have all been a non-story had she just made the flowers. Now it’ll drag on and on … and she’ll still lose.

via LGBTQ Nation

Back Story from ISBL:
Barronelle Stutzman, of Arlene's Flowers, and The Baby Jeebus, Don't Sell Flowers For Same-Sex Weddings
Barronelle Stutzman Gets Busted!

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