Next up at Supremes? State attack on Christian florist

Barronelle Stutzman

It might not be the next case at the Supreme Court, but it could be coming soon: Barronelle Stutzman's complaint that her home state of Washington unconstitutionally violated her First Amendment rights when it sued her for refusing to support a homosexual wedding with her floral artistry.

In a similar case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state of Colorado showed hostility toward the Christian faith of baker Jack Phillip in the process of penalizing him for refusing to create a wedding cake for a homosexual duo.

Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom said the Phillips decision makes clear the government "must respect Jack's beliefs about marriage."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in an overwhelming 7-2 ruling, said "the record here demonstrates that the commission’s consideration of Phillips' case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs."

The Stutzman case has been on hold at the Supreme Court ever since her lawyers asked that it be added to the Phillips case, which didn't happen.

But now that one case is cleared out of the way, the second might move forward.

Waggoner Tuesday responded to Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson's claim that the Phillips case will have little effect on the Stutzman case.

She said that in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the U.S. Supreme Court "denounced government hostility toward the religious beliefs about marriage held by creative professionals like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman."

"Such hostility exists when the government treats those people of faith worse than other business owners. The state of Washington, acting through its attorney general, has done just that," Waggoner said.

"While the attorney general failed to prosecute a business that obscenely berated and discriminated against Christian customers, he has steadfastly – and on his own initiative – pursued unprecedented measures to punish Barronelle not just in her capacity as a business owner but also in her personal capacity. In its Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, the Supreme Court condemned that sort of one-sided, discriminatory application of the law against people of faith."

She also pointed out that in the legal briefs that the attorney general has filed in Stutzman, "he has repeatedly and overtly demeaned her faith."

"He has compared her religious beliefs about marriage – which the Supreme Court said are 'decent and honorable' – to racial discrimination. This conflicts with the Supreme Court's recognition in Masterpiece Cakeshop that it was 'inappropriate' for the government to draw parallels between those religious beliefs and 'defenses of slavery.'"

Waggoner argued that Stutzman, like Phillips, "serves all customers but declines to create custom art that expresses messages or celebrates events in conflict with her deeply held religious beliefs."

"The attorney general's efforts to punish her because he dislikes her beliefs about marriage are as impermissible as Colorado's attempt to punish Jack."

Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers, said: "I serve everyone. What I can’t do is create custom floral arrangements that celebrate events or express messages at odds with my faith. For that, the attorney general has relentlessly prosecuted me, even suing me in my personal capacity.

"The man who asked me to design the floral arrangements for his same-sex wedding – Rob Ingersoll – was my customer and friend for over nine years. I knew that he was gay, but that didn't matter because I serve everyone. He enjoyed my custom floral designs, and I loved creating them for him. I would gladly serve Rob if he were to come back to my shop today. The attorney general has always ignored that part of my case, choosing to vilify me and my faith instead of respecting my religious beliefs about marriage.

"When the state trial court ruled against me at the attorney general's request, I wrote the attorney general a letter urging him 'to drop' the personal claims that risk stripping away 'my home, business, and other assets.' He didn't do that. For him, this case has been about making an example of me – crushing me – all because he disapproves of what I believe about marriage."

In the Colorado case, the court gave state officials a tongue-lashing.

"The commission's treatment of Phillips' case … showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the commission's formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillip's faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.

"No commissioners objected to the comments," the ruling charged.

In fact, the state commission's hostility toward Christian beliefs became evident at the outset of the case, when one member, Diann Rice, publicly exhibited bias against Phillips during a hearing, comparing him to a Nazi.

"I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting," Rice said during consideration of Phillips' case. "Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others."

Hear a recording of Rice's statement:

Further, Colorado approved in three cases of bakers discriminating against a Christian message because of their beliefs, yet refused to grant Phillips the same right.

In Stutzman's case, the Washington state Supreme Court oddly found that floral arrangements are "conduct" and subject to the state's anti-discrimination laws.