Archive

ShareThis Page
Supreme Court won’t hear case of anti-gay marriage florist | TribLIVE.com
News

Supreme Court won’t hear case of anti-gay marriage florist

The Associated Press
SupremeCourtGayWeddingFlorist35031jpg5c758
J. Scott Applewhite | AP
American Civil Liberties Union activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court is ordering Washington courts to take a new look at the case of a florist who refused to provide services for the wedding of two men because of her religious objection to same-sex marriage.

SEATTLE — The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Washington state courts Monday to take a new look at the case of a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding, in light of the justices’ recent ruling in a similar case involving a Colorado baker.

The order means the Supreme Court is again, for now, passing on the key issue in both cases: whether business owners citing their faith can refuse to comply with anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT people.

The 73-year-old florist, Barronelle Stutzman, appealed after Washington’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously last year that she broke the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing on religious grounds to provide flowers for the wedding of a customer at her Richland shop, Arlene’s Flowers, in 2013.

Early this month, the Supreme Court issued a limited ruling in favor of Jack Phillips, the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo.

In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the 7-2 majority 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. The commissioner had said that “religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history,” including slavery and the Holocaust.

Kennedy wrote that such disputes “must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Washington courts will now review the florist’s case for similar issues, but it’s unclear whether their analysis will change. The state’s high court held in its ruling floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Both Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Stutzman’s attorneys said the U.S. Supreme Court’s action was appropriate in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.

“The Washington State Supreme Court now has the job of determining whether the U.S. Supreme Court ruling affects this case,” Ferguson said in a written statement. “I am confident they will come to the same conclusion they did in their previous, unanimous ruling upholding the civil rights of same-sex couples in our state.”

But Stutzman’s attorney, Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel at the religious liberty law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, said the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision should prompt an overturning of Stutzman’s case. She cited what she described as the attorney general’s “unprecedented measures to punish Barronelle not just in her capacity as a business owner but also in her personal capacity.”

“The Washington attorney general’s efforts to punish her because he dislikes her beliefs about marriage are as impermissible as Colorado’s attempt to punish Jack,” Waggoner said.

Waggoner said Stutzman had sold the customer, Rob Ingersoll, flowers for nearly a decade and knew he was gay, but that his marriage did not comport with her beliefs and she could not provide services for it.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington represents Ingersoll and his husband, Curt Freed.

“There is simply no record of anti-religious sentiment from the Washington State courts, and we have every reason to believe the Washington State Supreme Court will reaffirm Curt and Robert’s right to be full and equal members of our society,” Emily Chiang said, the chapter’s legal director.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.