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

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

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

Polygamy: the next marriage rights frontier

Polygamy in Primetime book cover

I wrote in October about the inherent dishonesty behind the campaign for same-sex marriage (“Same-sex marriage is discriminatory”). It’s widely touted, of course, as a campaign for marriage equality.

Yet on the surface it’s anything but.

Continue reading

Share

Here comes the 800 lb. gorilla: SCOTUS and gay marriage

SCOTUS and gay marriage: Official portrait, Roberts Court, 2010

Front row: Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Back Row: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Jr., and Elena Kagan

This Friday afternoon the U.S. Supreme Court will consider 10 different petitions seeking review of lower court decisions on same-sex marriage. Nobody will be in the room except the nine justices–no law clerk, no court reporter, not even a guard. But I’d love to be a fly on the wall because it’s going to be a tactical battle par excellence.

Continue reading

Share

Same-sex marriage is discriminatory

Same-sex marriage is discriminatory: Man holding sign, "All You Need Is Love"

(CCL Fritz Leiss)

Proponents of Washington State’s same-sex marriage law–being challenged this fall by Referendum 74–like to characterize the issue at stake as one of “marriage equality.” If they really believe that, they can’t have spent more than about five minutes thinking about it.

Continue reading

Share

With love for people and hatred of sins

 

Two  brides in white wedding dresses with attendants

(CCL Amy T. Schubert)

I had a post ready to go today. But then North Carolina’s Amendment One passed last night. By a landslide, 61% to 39%.

Amendment One amends North Carolina’s Constitution to say that:

marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized.

I think same-sex marriage is a bad idea, indirectly harmful to children and invariably destructive, in its execution, of religious freedom. I’ve talked about that here, herehere and here.

So I should be celebrating, right?

Continue reading

Share