By Samuel Smith, The Christian Post
A florist in Washington State who refused to provide floral arrangements to a gay couple for their same-sex wedding ceremony, due to her religious objection to such a union, can now legally be sued personally by the state’s attorney general’s office, a judge in the state has determined.
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled last week that the state may bring a consumer protection lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, as she is being accused of violating the Consumer Protection Act when she declined to provide floral arrangements to a regular customer’s same-sex wedding because it went against her Christian beliefs.
The judge’s decision means that Stutzman remains at risk of suffering a serious personal financial hit and potential loss of her business. Ekstrom has set the trial date for March 23.
“The clear language of the Consumer Protection Act and state anti-discrimination law supports both corporation and individual liability,” Ekstrom said in explaining his decision.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, an advocacy group defending religious expression and also representing Stutzman, filed a motion stating that state law does not allow for a person to be sued personally for actions taken under business capacity. The organization also argues that Stutzman did not discriminate against the customer because she has served him flowers many times in the past.
15 Comments. Leave new
In the past, some people refused to provide services for inter-religious weddings, mixed race weddings, or non-Christian weddings – all claiming it was against their religion to participate in such events. Restaurants also refused to serve people of a certain race. Could a restaurant not serve a gay couple? I could go on. When one is in business to serve the public, it means ALL of the public. One cannot pick and choose based on personal beliefs.
If a Muslim owns a restaurant, should he be forced to serve pork?
A restaurant can pick its own menu, it cannot pick who it serves.
But I want some pork BBQ, and I don’t feel like going somewhere else.
The rise of Islam while the church of Christ is in decline will reap horrible consequences, and the example is Israel thinking they were absolved of judgement, yet, we know the story, and the same
will happen here in the USA.
Actually, John, you should be able to run your business how you please, without elitist interference. Let the free market decide it it’s a sustainable business model. And if you’re not happy that the local florist won’t serve a gay marriage, then start your own flower shop that will. Why are you whining about non-essentials? Oh, no, life is unfair because someone disagrees with me! Boo-hoo, the local bakery won’t make a cake for my Festivus party because it violates their religious beliefs. How will I live without a cake from “Hometown Bakery?” Find another bakery or bake your own cake or open a more inclusive bakery. This is America; you’re free to do those things. Except I’m no longer free to disagree with you. If I do, I i will feel the full wrath of the state. And thus continues our slide toward fascism.
Actually, Bob, that issue was settled contrary to your wishes at lunch counters in Greensboro and Nashville almost 55 years ago.
This case hopefully will wind up at the Supreme Court, she would win there
If you imagine that the supreme court is going to overturn Washington state law on discrimination and public accommodations, you are dreaming.
It is a real stretch to apply the provisions of the 14th amendment to citizens who chose a particular lifestyle. No, this was not settled 55 years ago. Let them go to another bakery.
I can’t get a steak at McDonald’s either. A Muslim working in a restaurant serving pork would be required to serve it, but doesn’t have to eat it. My wife is a teetotaler, but she once workied a pizza place and had to serve beer. It comes with the territory. So, if a person is in the business of arranging flowers for weddings, personal beliefs must be set aside and the flowers furnished. I am well aware that in these changing times things like this can be a struggle to come to terms with, but “equal protection under the law” in a democracy trumps personal beliefs nearly every time.
More accurately, settled by anti-discrimination laws such as those in Washington state regarding public accommodations. But the principle is the same.
Maybe she just doesn’t have gay wedding flowers on her “menu”.
So she refused to do business with gays and lesbians as it was against her convictions? But what would she do if the customers were Buddhist, Mormon, Muslims, etc. as clearly those groups beliefs would certainly be against common Christian beliefs? She should have done the right thing and simply provided for the public business..
Those who are captive–as I am–to a traditional, biblical worldview are destined to slide underground. We will be barred from professions and business activity that require us to act counter to our conscience. In Canada, this is already in progress. The courts there are currently determining whether it is permissible under the law to accredit a Christian law school in British Columbia that teaches from a traditional, biblical worldview and will not affirm same-sex marriage or abortion rights. Up till two years ago, I was an adjunct faculty member teaching history at a private, secular liberal arts college in upstate New York. At the time I was a PCUSA pastor. No problem. I have since moved to another church and moved also to the EPC. If I had made the transition to the EPC while still in my previous location, I have real doubts that I would have been permitted to continue to teach at that college, if my EPC affiliation had become known. If I keep my EPC affiliation secret, I probably could go back to teaching in a non-religious college, but if my EPC affiliation with all that it means were to be made known to the administration of such a school, I am confident that my services there would no longer be welcome.