Washington Supreme Court rules against florist who discriminated against same-sex couple

[wakjak]

 

The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, violated state nondiscrimination laws when she refused to sell flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding back in 2013.

When Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed asked her to provide flowers for their wedding, Stutzman refused, citing her religious beliefs. Both the couple and the state attorney general sued her for violating Washington’s law protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and she countersued, seeking the right to engage in such discrimination in the name of “religious freedom.” A lower court had ruled against her and required her to pay a fine of $1,000.

The argument Stutzman offered is that she didn’t discriminate against the couple because of their sexual orientation, but the Court rejected Stutzman’s “proposed distinction between status and conduct fundamentally linked to that status.” Only a person with a same-sex orientation would enter a same-sex wedding, so to refuse such a wedding is to discriminate on the basis of orientation.

The Court also rejected Stutzman’s arguments that the nondiscrimination law infringed on her free speech because flower arrangements are artistic. Flowers are not “inherently expressive,” the Court ruled, because “the decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding.” Stutzman herself had admitted that providing flowers to a wedding between Muslims would not constitute an endorsement for Islam, nor would flowers for an atheist wedding have endorsed atheism.

 

 

https://thinkprogress.org/washington-supreme-court-arlenes-flowers-d15c3d7f3150#.fn0773rx9

 

Look at that, no, you cannot discriminate for religious reasons. Go figure. 

[Emn1ty]

Quote

Only a person with a same-sex orientation would enter a same-sex wedding, so to refuse such a wedding is to discriminate on the basis of orientation. 

I wonder if they considered the fact that bisexuality is a thing? Regardless I agree with this decision, but I wonder if they'd rule the same way were the roles reversed, a homosexual florist not providing flours for a heterosexual wedding.

[The Rev]

That's a shame... :-p

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Just FYI, we have in RWI two threads suitable for topics like this one:

 

Official Religion Thread IV

Official Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Issues Thread II

 

 

[shockz]

2 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

Just FYI, we have in RWI two threads suitable for topics like this one:

 

Official Religion Thread IV

Official Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Issues Thread II

 

 

Ever notice when someone doesn't like the outcome of a news event, they drop posts like these in order to avoid current news like the original post in this thread from getting better light with a specific title? 

[Hum]

some other florist will sell them flowers .... pointless