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

Meandering Monday: a few good articles

I don’t know about where you live, but it’s a glorious day here in Southwest Washington. I can’t really imagine that you have your nose stuck to the screen. But if so, I hope you’re outside–and here are some good articles I’ve run across recently in my meanderings around the Internet.

Oh, and don’t forget the sunscreen.

Article: Sharia Do Like It

good articles: woman in burkha

(CCL CharlesFred)

Why you may want to read it: Britain’s Economist runs a feature called Graphic Detail: a new chart or map each day, often interactive and with interesting external links. Oh, I know, it sounds a little wonky, but take “Sharia Do Like It.”

What exactly do Muslims who support sharia law mean by that, anyway? How does Islam in Afghanistan compare with Islam in, say, Kazakhstan? And how do fans of sharia feel about religious freedom, anyway?

Excerpt: Almost 80% of Egyptian Muslims say they favour religious freedom and a similar number favour sharia law. Of that group, almost 90% also think people who renounce Islam should be put to death. Confused? So are they.

Continue reading

Share

Breitbart on military religious freedom: fact and fiction

Military religious freedom: Mikey Weinstein

Mikey Weinstein (CCL truthout.org)

Mikey Weinstein bears considerable watching.

Breitbart set the conservative blogosphere buzzing last Sunday with a claim that Weinstein, founder and president of the virulent Military Religious Freedom Foundation, had been hired by the Pentagon as a consultant. Then on Wednesday Breitbart ramped up the rhetoric with this sure-to-generate-page-views headline, “Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith.”

But I can find no evidence of any ongoing professional relationship. And so far all the Pentagon has done is to reiterate a decades-old policy against coercive proselytizing.

Continue reading

Share

Arlene’s Flowers update

Arlene's Flowers

Earlier this month, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, a Richland florist business that refused to supply flowers for the same-sex wedding of long-time customers Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. I wrote about the suit here.

Last week, State Sen. Sharon Brown, whose district includes Richland, introduced a bill designed to protect Arlene’s Flowers and other businesses in similar situations. SB 5927 would amend the state’s non-discrimination statute to include the following language:

Continue reading

Share

And so it begins: Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts

Arlene's Flowers and Gifts: red rose

Last Tuesday, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, a Richland florist business that refused to supply flowers for a same-sex wedding. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed were decade-long customers of the business.

Continue reading

Share

HHS mandate: comment needed today!

HHS mandate: contraceptive pills

Midnight tonight is the deadline for public comment on the HHS mandate regarding contraception. Scheduled to take effect August 1st, the mandate requires virtually all employers to pay for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs.

Even if you’re staunchly pro-choice, opposing the HHS mandate is the right thing to do. This isn’t about trying to outlaw or restrict access to contraceptives or abortion-producing drugs.

It’s about saving the First Amendment.

Continue reading

Share