Washington Supreme Court rules against a florist for a SECOND TIME after she refused to sell a gay couple flowers for their wedding
- State courts didn't act with animosity toward religion when ruling a florist broke state anti-discrimination law refusing to serve a gay couple on religious grounds
- Washington Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed its 2017 opinion in the case brought against florist Barronelle Stutzman and her Arlene's Flowers business
- She had appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the state level last year for a fresh determination
- The court said flowers do not constitute protected free speech and providing flowers to a same-sex wedding was not an endorsement of same-sex marriage
- The court reached the same decision: Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers to the same-sex couple was based on discrimination against sexual orientation
Washington state's top court ruled for a second time on Thursday that a Christian florist discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to sell them flowers for their wedding.
In a unanimous decision, the Washington Supreme Court's nine justices said that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene´s Flowers in Richland, Washington, violated a state anti-discrimination law by refusing service to Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, for their marriage in 2013.
Stutzman, a member of the Southern Baptist denomination, believes that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman.
The court reached the same decision: Barronelle Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers to the same-sex couple was based on discrimination against the couple's sexual orientation
TheAlliance Defending Freedom nonprofit group that advocates for religious rights represents Stutzman and said it will again petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case
Her lawyers vowed to make another appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The state court previously ruled against Stutzman in 2017, but was ordered to reconsider the case after the nation's highest court last year sided with a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two men, citing religious beliefs.
The 7-2 majority in that case found that comments by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed an anti-religious bias, depriving Phillips of the respect and consideration his beliefs deserved.
That ruling was narrow and did not resolve the constitutional issues raised, instead finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not handle the case appropriately.
Robert Ingersoll (left) and Curt Freed (right) sued when Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, refused to do the flowers for their wedding
Stutzman said she will now appeal once again to the U.S. Supreme Court after a Washington state court ruled Thursday that she violated the state’s civil rights law
The Washington Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing Stutzman's case for similar issues.
The ruling sets up a potential clash over gay and religious rights at the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Thursday, Washington high court said it reviewed Stutzman's case and found it was handled neutrally and 'avoided animus toward religion.'
Neither the Washington Supreme Court nor the Benton County Superior Court acted with religious animosity when they ruled the florist violated Washington state's discrimination law, the state supreme court's decision said.
It again rejected Stutzman's argument that arranging flowers for a same-sex wedding would violate her free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and would be tantamount to endorsing same-sex marriage.
State law says businesses offering services to opposite-sex couples must provide the same service to same-sex couples. Above, Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington
The court said flower arrangements do not constitute protected free speech and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding was not an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers to the same-sex couple was discrimination against sexual orientation, the decision reiterated.
Furthermore, 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.
State law says businesses offering services to opposite-sex couples must provide the same service to same-sex couples.
'I could lose my business and life savings simply because I declined to celebrate and participate in a sacred event that violates my faith,' the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, said following Thursday's decision. 'No artist or creative professional should be forced by the government to create custom work that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs. That's why I will appeal my case to the U.S. Supreme Court.'
'We are confident that the courts resolved this dispute with tolerance, and we therefore find no reason to change our original judgment,' Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who sued Stutzman and her business in 2013, praised the decision saying he would continue to uphold the state's antidiscrimination laws.
Stutzman had sold Robert Ingersoll, right, 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. Hie husband, Curt Freed, is pictured, left
'Washington state law protects same-sex couples from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, the same way it protects Washingtonians from discrimination based on their religion, veteran or military status, disability, race and other protected classes,' Ferguson said.
The Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom nonprofit group that advocates for religious rights represents Stutzman and said it will again petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case.
'Without even holding an oral argument, the state court came back with the same result, repeating verbatim much of what it said in its original decision,' the group said in a statement.
'Barronelle serves all customers: she simply declines to celebrate or participate in sacred events that violate her deeply held belief,' said John Bursch, a vice president of the alliance. 'We look forward to taking Barronelle's case back to the U.S. Supreme Court,' he said.
Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed were longtime customers of Ms Stutzman's flower shop
'I could lose my business and life savings simply because I declined to celebrate and participate in a sacred event that violates my faith,' the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, said following Thursday's decision
Litigation challenging the scope of protection for gay rights has mounted since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015 and tests whether people can claim religious or freedom-of-expression exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.
The justices are currently weighing whether to take up a case that echoes the Colorado dispute involving an appeal by Christian bakery owners in Oregon who were fined for refusing a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
The Supreme Court has a more solidly conservative 5-4 majority since President Donald Trump's appointee Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench last October, replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who often voted with his liberal counterparts on divisive social issues.
