Supremes revive gay-wedding flowers case

Arlene's Flowers owner Baronelle Stutzman was prosecuted by Washington state for refusing, due to her Christian beliefs, to arrange flowers for a gay couple she had served for a decade.

On the heels of its ruling in favor of a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sent the case of a florist who refused to prepare a floral arrangement for a gay wedding back to the Washington State Supreme Court for reconsideration.

Floral artist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers, refused to create flower arrangements for the wedding of same-sex couple Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed because of her religious beliefs.

Baronelle Stutzman

While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips -- emphasizing state hostility shown toward religion -- it declined to address the central issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers.

TRENDING: Speaker Johnson's flip-flop on surveillance provision

Representing Stutzman, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing Stutzman's case should be reconsidered because the court reversed Colorado's decision to punish Phillips for declining the same-sex couples request based on his religious beliefs about marriage.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union sued Stutzman after she declined the request of a couple she had served for nearly 10 years. She explained that she had no problem serving them but drew a line at the specific request of using her business and talents to symbolically endorse same-sex marriage.

ADF pointed out a double standard in Ferguson's prosecution of businesses, pursuing Stutzman while deciding not to prosecute a business that berated and discriminated against Christian customers.

Ferguson also went after Stutzman personally, ADF said, obtaining a court order allowing him to collect on Stutzman's personal assets.

The state AG, in addition, publicized a letter offering to settle the case for $2,001 in exchange for Stutzman giving up her religious and artistic freedom.

ADF noted that in the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, it condemned one-sided, discriminatory applications of the law against people of faith.

Last week, as WND reported, an Oregon couple forced to shut down its bakery because of crippling state fines for refusing to make a wedding cake for two women has appealed its case to the U.S. Supreme Court in light of the Phillips ruling.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, commended the U.S. Supreme Court's move in the Stutzman case.

"Washington Attorney General Ferguson's efforts to punish Barronelle because he disagrees with her beliefs about marriage are as hostile and unconstitutional as Colorado's attempt to punish Jack for his faith," he said.

Staver pointed out that the court denounced government hostility toward the religious beliefs about marriage held by creative professionals in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, noting both Stutzman and Phillips "serve all customers."

"Yet, they have a First Amendment right to decline using their artistic talents to celebrate an event that conflicts with their religious beliefs," he said.

Ferguson, meanwhile said according to the Associated Press he's "confident" the Washington State Supreme Court "will come to the same conclusion they did in their previous, unanimous ruling upholding the civil rights of same-sex couples in our state."

However, senior ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner argued the state of Washington, through Ferguson, has shown the kind of hostility toward religion displayed by the state of Colorado toward in the Phillips case.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled against the baker, showed hostility that was "inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

But Kennedy said the larger issue "must await further elaboration."