Calling the divorce of religious belief from religious expression
“unconstitutional and completely hollow,” attorneys for Barronelle
Stutzman will argue before the Washington Supreme Court that a “very
robust” state statute and U.S. constitutional guarantees support their
client. The state high court agreed Mar. 1 to hear the case of the
embattled Washington florist sued for declining to create arrangements
for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian convictions about
marriage.
Opposing attorneys, and a lower court ruling, claim Stutzman’s ability
to act upon her religious convictions and expressive freedoms end where
Washington state law begins. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson
and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are leveraging sexual
orientation and gender identity (SOGI) non-discrimination laws and the
U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling to force a “no-exceptions”
application of public accommodation laws. They argue if Stutzman, owner
of Arlene’s Flowers, provides floral arrangements for heterosexual
couples, she must do likewise for same-sex couples, regardless of her
beliefs.
“It does not matter what you think about marriage,” Kristen Waggoner,
Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel told me. “The way these cases
come out will affect you.”
Few cases like Stutzman’s dotted America’s legal landscape 10 years ago
as states began to consider recognizing same-sex marriage and
establishing SOGI laws. The timing and peculiarities of Ingersoll v.
Arlene’s Flowers set it apart from earlier cases and put it on a
trajectory for the U.S. Supreme Court, Stutzman’s lawyers hope.
In 2006, photographer Elane Huguenin was sued for declining to
photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. She lost her
eight-year bid for a hearing before the U. S. Supreme Court in 2014.
Huguenin’s case was unusual—at the time.
“That is no longer an anomaly,” Waggoner said. “It is becoming a regular occurrence.”
The Arlene’s Flowers case is unique because the ACLU and Washington
attorney general not only sued the business, they initially sued
Stutzman personally. Under public pressure, Ferguson backed off suing
the 71-year-old grandmother and breast cancer survivor, reducing the
state’s fine to $2,000. But the ACLU still seeks fines and attorney’s
fees, which Waggoner said could easily reach seven figures.
In 2013, Stutzman declined to create floral arrangements for long-time
customer Robert Ingersoll’s wedding to partner Curt Freed. ADF attorneys
will continue to argue Stutzman’s floral arrangements are
constitutionally protected creative expressions. As such, Stutzman
cannot be forced to use her artistic talents in ways that conflict with
her deeply held religious convictions about the biblical nature of
marriage.
“The trial court’s and [the state’s and the ACLU’s] view—that there can
never be a free speech exception to public accommodation laws—endangers
everyone,” ADF attorneys state in their appeal. “If correct, then the
consciences of all citizens are fair game for the government.”
In addition to the “no exceptions” application of nondiscrimination
laws, the ACLU and Ferguson charged “defendants refused to sell flowers
to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding solely on the basis of
their sexual orientation.”
But evidence of the years-long customer relationship between Ingersoll,
Freed, and Stutzman belies claims Stutzman is guilty of discrimination.
The florist knew Ingersoll was gay when she collaborated with him many
times over the years on arrangements he ordered for Freed.
“Mrs. Stutzman and other people of faith are not purveyors of invidious
discrimination,” the brief states. “They simply cannot endorse the
redefinition of what they consider to be an immutable religious
institution.”
ACLU attorneys contend the redefinition of marriage and SOGI laws do
not deprive Americans of their religious liberties because they can
continue to believe whatever they want. But Waggoner noted that
interpretation of First Amendment protections defies common sense.
People throughout human history have always been free to believe
anything they want. America added a new layer of religious liberty by
constitutionally protecting freedoms that allow people to act on their
religious or non-religious convictions.
“Contrary to the state’s assertions, there is no option that would
allow Mrs. Stutzman to comply with the trial court’s orders and her
faith,” the ADF brief states. “Not creating wedding designs altogether
is not a means of complying with Mrs. Stutzman’s religious beliefs—faith
is what motivates her to celebrate marriage through her art.”
Courtesy: WORLD News Service
No comments:
Post a Comment