Florist fights back: Arlene’s Flowers update

Barronelle Stutzman

Barronelle Stutzman (Facebook)

Barronelle Stutzman has decided that the best defense is a good offense. Stutzman, 68, is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, the Richland, Washington, business being sued by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Ferguson is suing Arlene’s because Stutzman declined to violate her faith by doing the floral decorations for the wedding of longtime customer Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.

Stutzman filed a countersuit yesterday against the attorney general, arguing that his suit violates her rights under both the United States and Washington State Constitutions, as well as violating the federal Civil Rights Act.

Article 1, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship.” It guarantees that:

no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion.

The countersuit, Arlene’s Flowers v. Ferguson, makes clear that Stutzman had no qualms about doing business with gay and lesbian customers in general or Ingersoll in particular:

In her capacity as the owner and primary floral designer for Arlene’s Flowers, Barronelle has been creating floral arrangements for Robert Ingersoll for nearly nine years. Barronelle enjoys the warm and cordial relationship that she has developed with Mr. Ingersoll. . . .

Barronelle has known that Robert Ingersoll identifies himself as gay throughout most of their nine-year relationship. That fact never made any difference in the way Mr. Ingersoll was treated as a customer.

Arlene’s Flowers routinely designs floral arrangements for other gay and lesbian clientele. Arlene’s Flowers has also had openly gay employees.

The countersuit also details Stutzman’s religious convictions:

In accordance with her understanding of traditional Christian and Biblical [sic] values, Barronelle believes that marriage has religious significance apart from any civil significance, and that its religious significance is inherent in the institution of marriage. Barronelle believes, as the Bible teaches, that marriage is defined by God as a union of man and woman.

Barronelle knew that creating floral arrangements for Mr. Ingersoll’s wedding would be contrary to her sincerely held religious convictions. She believed that doing so would compel her to express a message with her creativity that violates God’s commands. She also believed that her creation of the floral arrangements would be perceived as an endorsement and celebration of same-sex marriage.

You can read the countersuit here. (Keep scrolling–it follows Arlene’s response to the attorney general’s original complaint.)

Before voters legalized same-sex marriage last fall, same-sex marriage proponents assured us that, in Rep. Jamie Pedersen’s words:

the legislation will provide strong protection for religious liberty.

Now, of course, we see that it provides no protection at all. And Bob Ferguson’s ham-handed and simplistic solution is simply to trample the rights of people of faith.

Washington State’s non-discrimination statute prohibits discrimination on the basis of creed and religion as well as on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s high time we start talking about how we’re going to actually do that.

Last year was actually the time for the conversation, of course.

But better late than never.

Share

6th Circuit to Pilgrims: Cry me a river

Romeike family

The Romeike family (HSLDA)

It’s a good thing the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals wasn’t around when the Mayflower arrived. Those venerable jurists would have sent its passengers packing.

The Pilgrims’ search for religious freedom is central to our understanding of who we are as a country. But their story would never weather a court challenge today. They weren’t even persecuted in the Netherlands, after all. They simply found the Dutch culture and language strange, and Dutch morals loose–and they feared they were losing their children to the dominant Dutch culture.

Cry me a river, the Sixth Circuit would say.

In fact, they just did.

German immigrants Uwe and Hannelore Romeike have a much stronger case than the Pilgrims ever did. But the Sixth Circuit handed them their hats Tuesday, and told them to go back to Germany.

Home schooling is illegal in Germany. But, concerned about public school teachings at odds with their Christian faith, the couple began home schooling their children in 2007. They were quickly hit with over ten thousand dollars in fines and threatened with the loss of their children. In 2008, they came to the United States and later sought asylum here.

In 2010, U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted their petition. He found that they had a “well-founded fear of persecution” for their beliefs if they returned to Germany. He noted in his decision that:

[T]he rights that are being violated in this case are basic to humanity, they are basic human rights which no country has a right to violate, even a country that is in many ways a good country, such as Germany.

But the Justice Department appealed the decision. And, in 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned Judge Burman’s decision. The Romeikes, in turn, appealed that decision. (I wrote about their situation back in February, if you want more detail than I’ve given here.)

Tuesday a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati upheld the BIA decision. (You can read the full decision here.) The appellate court said that the Romeikes aren’t eligible for asylum because they weren’t persecuted in Germany.

Draconian fines? Nope. Threats of losing their children? Pshaw. It’s not persecution, the court said, because the law applies equally to everyone. German law prohibits everyone from home schooling.

It’s a patently ridiculous argument. Suppose  we passed a law requiring businesses to be open on Saturday. It wouldn’t precipitate a crisis of conscience for most Americans. Most of us aren’t adverse to working on Saturdays. (Okay, so maybe we are–but not morally opposed, just a tad lazy.) It would, however, be tremendously oppressive to our Orthodox Jewish, Conservative Jewish and Seventh Day Adventist friends and neighbors.

Notice: The law would apply equally to everyone in the country–but would only persecute a small minority. But, incredibly, the 6th Circuit says that even when a law violates human rights, it doesn’t rise to the level of persecution as long as it is “equally administered to all.”

Bring on the thumb screws and rack! Just be sure you administer them equally to all.

But it gets worse. The German government is on record as saying that the law is specifically intended to target people like the Romeikes. A 2003 German Supreme Court decision held that Germany’s compulsory attendance law served a legitimate state interest by “counteracting the development of parallel societies.” In plain English, that means the purpose of the law is to suppress people who think differently than the majority: religious and philosophical minorities, in other words.

Enforced groupthink doesn’t persecute minorities? Who are we trying to kid?

The Romeikes plan to appeal to the full Sixth Circuit. But if they lose there, they’re probably out of options. Except for bankruptcy, imprisonment and the loss of their children.

Or doing what they believe to be wrong.

Unless, of course, they want to slip into Mexico. There, as Don Vincenzo suggests at The Thinking Housewife, they could wait for the President to get his amnesty plan through Congress before returning as illegal aliens. Then the same Justice Department that is forcing them out would presumably welcome them with open arms.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Share

Kermit Gosnell trial is over–ours isn’t

Kermit Gosnell: 3D ultrasound image of baby in utero

3D ultrasound image (CCL Sheila Steele)

Kermit Gosnell was convicted today on three counts of first degree murder–for the murders of Babies A, C and D. Testimony had shown that Gosnell joked to staffers while killing Baby A that the infant was big enough to “walk me to the bus stop.” He was also convicted on one count of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, whom his medically unqualified staff sedated to death.

Now where do we go from here?

What will we do about the hundreds of other viable babies–probably several thousand–who are being born alive and killed or left to die in our country each year?

About the more than 3,000 other babies killed in this country each day in utero–just a few inches and a few seconds away from where Babies A, C and D were murdered.

At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, 1994, Mother Teresa said (you can watch her whole speech here):

I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Using any violence to get what we want? Mother Teresa never set foot in the 21st century, but she saw it more clearly than most of us do.

The question is, what will we do about what we know?

The trial of Kermit Gosnell has ended. Ours is not yet finished.

Share

And so it begins: Legalize polygamy

Polygamy: man and four wives

Sister-wives (CCL Sean Dreilinger)

Well, that didn’t take long. New Zealand legalized same-sex marriage last week, France followed suit this week, The New Yorker runs a piece today on “Momentum and Gay Marriage” . . . and suddenly same-sex marriage is so 2012. Now polygamy is the brave new frontier:

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Continue reading

Share

Battle Ground school levy: Just say no

Battle Ground school levy: vote noIn February, Southwest Washington voters soundly defeated the Battle Ground school levy 53% to 47%.

The voters have spoken–but in Washington that doesn’t mean squat.

All it means is that those same voters get to foot the bill for another expensive special election. Barely two months later. As the district tries again to pass the same levy.

That’s right.

Continue reading

Share

After-birth abortion and the rise of neo-barbarism

The 20th century saw the rise of the neos: neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, neo-orthodoxy. The 21st century will be remembered for the rise of neo-barbarism.

Florida state legislators last week considered House Bill 1129. The Infants Born Alive Act:

[p]rovides that infant born alive during or immediately after attempted abortion is entitled to same rights, powers, & privileges as any other child born alive in course of natural birth; requires health care practitioners to preserve life & health of such infant born alive, if possible; provides for transport & admittance of infant to hospital.

After-birth abortion: Planned Parenthood logoWho could object to trying to save the life of a baby, right?

Planned Parenthood, that’s who.

PP lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow spoke in opposition to the bill.

Continue reading

Share

Some things never change

Holmquist Newbry: Washington State Capitol

(CCL MathTeacherGuy)

Olympia Washington, March 16, 1993. Tomorrow is this legislative session’s deadline for both the State Senate and the House to act on bills originating within their respective chambers, and thus keep them alive. Both parties are busily rounding up support for bills that haven’t yet been voted on.

Every vote counts.

Continue reading

Share