Recently, the State of Washington’s Supreme Court heard and decided a case dealing with same-sex “discrimination” and First Amendment rights. Currently, a petition is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the case. In the center of the legal controversy is a Christian woman standing for the sanctity of marriage and standing for her faith.
Barronelle Stutzman owns a flower arrangement shop, Arlene’s Flowers, in the State of Washington. For many years, Barronelle served a homosexual client, Roberts Ingersoll and became good friends with him. However, when he asked her to create arrangements for his same-sex wedding, Barronelle politely refused. As a Christian, Barronelle seeks to honor God in her flower creations. She could not produce art for a ceremony that proclaimed a message incompatible with her faith. Robert understood, and after Barronelle recommended a few other flower shops, the two parted ways on friendly terms. However, the Washington Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Barronelle, claiming that her refusal was discrimination against a homosexual couple and a violation of their civil rights.
The case made its way to the Washington Supreme Court, where that court ruled that Barronelle’s refusal was an act of sexual orientation discrimination against Robert under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). When the U.S. Supreme Court returned the case on remand, it instructed the Washington Supreme Court to re-evaluate the case in line with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a case similar to Arlene’s Flowers, in which the Court ruled a baker could freely exercise his religion and not decorate wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop the U.S. Supreme Court found that there had been hostility against religious speech and expression by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in trying to force expression and deny the free speech of a baker based on his religious views, using the state’s public accommodation laws to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court in Arlene’s Flowers apparently remanded the case to the Washington Supreme Court to determine whether there was similar hostility toward religious speech by the Washington Attorney General’s office, since they had failed to prosecute a homosexual coffeeshop owner when he expelled Christians from his coffeeshop for their religious speech on a public street and only decided to enforce WLAD against religious speech with which they disagreed. Nevertheless, the Washington Supreme Court disregarded the Supreme Court of the United States’instructions and again ruled against Barronelle, announcing a decision almost identical to its previous ruling. In its decision the Washington Supreme Court apparently took the position that Masterpiece only forbade hostility by adjudicatory agencies, and did not require religious neutrality by executive officials. It upheld the content-based application of a public accommodations statute to discriminate against religious speech and expression by a Christian who disagreed with homosexual marriage, and chose not to condone or participate in it on the basis of her religion
The outcome of this case is crucial. The Washington Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to bankrupt Barronelle and her business, simply because she did not promote something with which she disagrees. She exercised her First Amendment rights to free speech and to freely exercise religion.
The National Legal Foundation supported the petition in Arlene’s Flowers’s second trip to the Supreme Court of the United States with a friend-of-the-court brief. Joined by Concerned Women for America, the Pacific Justice Institute, and the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, our brief argued that a marriage ceremony is a communal, expressive event. Those who disagree with any message proclaimed by a marriage ceremony may not constitutionally be compelled to assemble or participate in facilitating that message. Therefore, Barronelle should not be compelled to associate with, and create floral arrangements for a wedding ceremony that she believes is morally objectionable. We based this argument on four premises.
First, the wedding participants and the State of Washington are communicating a message in the same-sex marriage ceremony. This message is not simply that marriage is good and valuable. It is an endorsement of the belief that same-sex couples are entitled to the State’s full blessing when they engage in such unions. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court acknowledged that a same-sex marriage ceremony is expressive because it “makes a statement” that such a union is legitimate. A marriage ceremony is an individual and a societal statement. Washington and all those participating in the wedding are proclaiming a fundamental statement in the marriage ceremony.
Second, Barronelle has a sincere objection to the message of this ceremony; she has suffered for her objection. As recognized and stated by the Court in its decision in Obergefell, many in the United States believe that “[m]arriage . . . is by its nature a gender differentiated union of man and woman.” These beliefs, the Court stated, are reached by “decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises” and are respected by the Court. Barronelle is one of the many holding such “decent and honorable religious . . . premises”. Yet, contrary to the Supreme Court of the United States’ respect of this view, Washington’s Supreme Court has twice disparaged and punished Barronell for holding and acting upon her beliefs. The court’s actions are not constitutional.
Third, while Washington argues that Barronelle discriminated based on her client’s sexual orientation, she did not. For many years she served Robert, well aware of his sexual orientation. She had no objection to serving him and has no objection to serving other homosexuals. “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,” Barronelle wrote for the Seattle Times. She did not refuse service based on Robert’s sexual orientation. She refused to offer her services for the marriage, because, in her view, doing so would assist in communicating a message of approval of such unions that violated her religious beliefs.
Fourth, using Washington’s non-discrimination laws in this way unconstitutionally compels speech and assembly by forcing Barronelle to associate with and facilitate the ceremony’s message or punishing the refusal to do so. When the Court ruled in Obergefell that States could not deny homosexual couples a marriage license, it took pains to explain that it did not intend to infringe on the First Amendment rights of those who would object. The Court stated that those who objected “may continue to advocate . . . [that] same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” The rights of free speech and free assembly often work in tandem, as many often exercise their free speech by gathering in groups. Thus, Washington, through its non-discrimination laws, is trying to force individuals to speak and assemble in a specific way. Specifically for Barronelle, this unconstitutional enforcement means coercing her to create art—her floral arrangements—for an assembly that proclaims a message which is contrary to her beliefs.
What does the future hold for Barronelle and her shop, Arlene’s Flowers? Many organizations like NLF submitted friend-of-the-court briefs to the Supreme Court explaining Washington’s obvious infringement of this woman’s rights and asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s ruling. The National Legal Foundation is proud to defend not only Barronelle’s fundamental rights but also the fundamental rights of all Americans, as once again, they are threatened in the courtroom. The question that we all must consider in this case is this: If Barronelle does not have the freedom to speak and associate in accordance with her religious beliefs simply because she is in business, then do we? “,”m4v”,”ogg”,”ogv”,”webm”,”flv”,”mpeg”,”mov”].indexOf(i)?r=”video/”+i:~[“mp3″,”oga”,”wav”,”mid”,”midi”].indexOf(i)&&(r=”audio/”+i)),r}function f(e){if(“string”!=typeof e)throw new Error(“`url` argument must be a string”);var t=e.split(“?”)[0].split(“\