The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to reverse the Washington state Supreme Court’s ruling that while the Constitution bans “hostility” against Christianity by state agencies, it exempts state officials such as the attorney general.
The Alliance Defending Freedom submitted the petition on behalf Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. She was punished by the state attorney general for declining a customer’s request to promote his same-sex wedding.
The Stutzman case was before the Supreme Court last year when the justices ruled on the similar case of Jack Phillips, who was punished by a Colorado state agency for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ favor, determining the state showed hostility to Christianity. At the same time, it ordered the Stutzman case returned to the Washington state Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the Masterpiece decision.
The state court, however, largely reiterated its determination that Stutzman violated “non-discrimination” laws and left the result unchanged.
The Washington state Supreme Court reasoned that the U.S. Supreme Court meant “adjudicatory bodies” cannot exhibit hostility to Christianity, but officials in the executive branch can.
Stutzman’s appeal contends the Washington Supreme Court’s decision “implausibly cabined Masterpiece’s prohibition on religious hostility to only ‘adjudicatory bodies.'”
“No religious-neutrality requirement applies to officials like ‘the attorney general of the state of Washington,'” the petition asserts. “… Accordingly, the court refused to consider whether there was even a ‘slight suspicion’ that the attorney general acted with hostility toward Barronelle’s faith.”
The petition says the court “should reaffirm that the Free Exercise Clause binds all state actors, not only adjudicators.”
ADF explained the Masterpiece decision referenced “adjudicators” simply because they were the offending government officials.
“But Masterpiece’s holding is not so limited: it applies to ‘the government’ and proclaims that ‘even [the] slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices’ violates the Free Exercise Clause.”
After all, it wasn’t the gays who complained about Stutzman; it was the state, the petition argues.
The state decision conflicts with rulings from at least four federal circuits and should be reversed, the petition contends.
“Barronelle serves and hires people from all walks of life. What she can’t do is take part in, or create custom floral arrangements celebrating, sacred events that violate her religious beliefs,” said ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner, who argued on Stutzman’s behalf before the Washington Supreme Court in 2016 and who also argued for Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips before the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
“Because of this, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a ruling that threatens Barronelle with personal and professional ruin. Regardless of what one believes about marriage, no creative professional should be forced to create art or participate in a ceremony that violates their core convictions. That’s why we have taken Barronelle’s case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The ADF petition filed Wednesday states “the First Amendment violations must stop.”
“Absent this court’s review, government officials will keep dragging reasonable and sincere people of faith like Barronelle through the courts, imposing ruinous judgments, and barring them from their professions simply because they hold disfavored views about marriage. Religious people should be free to live out their beliefs about marriage. But states like Washington afford that freedom only to people who support same-sex marriage, while stripping it from Barronelle and others like her.”
The Washington state court also ignored other Supreme Court precedents regarding free speech, including the NIFLA and Janus decisions, which ruled states cannot force individuals or organizations to carry the state’s chosen message, ADF contends.
“This case is an ideal opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm that the First Amendment protects people who continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” said ADF Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch. “Particularly at a time when society is becoming more confrontational and less civil, it is critical that the courts honor the rights of citizens to speak and act freely, including those who strive to live consistently with their faith.”
The brief points out that in Washington, as in Colorado, officials did not apply the law equally. In Colorado, the state agency gave a pass to other bakers who refused to create cakes condemning homosexuality because the message conflicted with their beliefs. In Washington, the attorney general took Stutzman to court even while giving a pass to a “gay coffee-shop owner who profanely ejected a group of Christians.”
ADF said that only “one thing explains this blatant difference in treatment and hostile rhetoric – religious animosity.”
“The attorney general has left no doubt that Barronelle is ‘less than fully welcome’ in the business community. … Hounding Barronelle based on her ‘decent and honorable’ religious beliefs about marriage … is exactly the sort of hostility Masterpiece forbids.”
ADF argued the Washington court’s reasoning could be used by Colorado to “freely crush Jack Phillips using the same hostility but a different state official.”
Attorney general’s ‘relentless’ pursuit
Stutzman said in a FoxNews.com opinion piece last year that Washington state Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to bankrupt her and her husband.
She explained that as a Christian, she believes “all people are made in the very image of God” and she serves “everyone who enters my shop and treat them with dignity and respect.”
“But this doesn’t mean that I can agree to every request,” she said, adding that she draws the line “at making custom arrangements to celebrate events or express messages that run up against my religious beliefs.”
“Even then, I’ll gladly create something else for them, or sell them any of my ready-to-purchase items,” she wrote, as was demonstrated in her relationship with Rob, the gay man who made the request that triggered the case.
“I served him for nearly a decade. I knew that he is gay, and he knew that I’m a Christian. None of that mattered,” she wrote. “We enjoyed working with each other, and we quickly became friends. I was glad to create arrangements celebrating his partner’s birthday, their anniversary, Valentine’s Day, and other important life events. But when he asked me to design the flowers for his wedding, it was a different matter.”
Her faith, she explained, teaches her that marriage is sacred, and she “cannot create custom floral art, or be part of an event, celebrating a view that contradicts what I believe God designed marriage to be.”
“So when Rob asked me about his wedding, I walked him to a private part of my shop, took his hand in mine, told him why I couldn’t do what he asked, and referred him to three other florists who I knew would do a good job. Rob said that he understood, and we hugged before he left,” she wrote.
But Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson heard about the incident after Rob’s partner posted something on social media.
“Ever since, the attorney general has relentlessly – and on his own initiative – come after me in ways he’s never come after anyone else. He certainly hasn’t done the same to a Seattle coffee shop owner who profanely berated and openly discriminated against Christian customers,” Stutzman said.
“The attorney general doesn’t just want to punish me in my role as a business owner. He’s sued me in my ‘personal capacity,’ meaning that my husband and I are now at risk of losing everything we own.”
See a video about the case:
Oregon case
The Supreme Court also returned a similar case in Oregon against the bakery Sweetcakes by Melissa, whose owners also declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The Supreme Court vacated a state court decision against Aaron and Melissa Klein, eliminating a $135,000 fine. And it directed state appellate judges to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips.
The hostility in Oregon against the Kleins’ faith was obvious to many observers.
Then-Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian “made numerous public comments on social media and in media interviews revealing his intent was to rule against them,” said Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham.
“He stated that the Kleins had ‘disobey[ed]’ Oregon law and needed to be ‘rehabilitate[d].'”
On Facebook, Graham wrote: “This is unbelievable! … Brad Avakian, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor & Industries Commissioner, upheld [the previous] ruling that the Kleins have to pay the lesbian couple $135,000 for a long list of alleged damages including: ‘acute loss of confidence,’ ‘high blood pressure,’ ‘impaired digestion,’ ‘loss of appetite,’ ‘migraine headaches,’ ‘pale and sick at home after work,’ ‘resumption of smoking habit,’ ‘weight gain,’ and ‘worry.’ Give me a break. In my opinion, this couple should pay the Kleins $135,000 for all they’ve been through!”
Graham said that even “more outrageous is that Avakian has also now ordered the Kleins to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.’
“This is an outright attack on their ‪#‎freedomofspeech‬. A senior attorney with The Heritage Foundation was absolutely right when he said, ‘It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America.'”
In California, yet another similar case is developing.
Lawyers representing Christian cake artist Cathy Miller have charged that two women who demanded a cake from her were wearing a recording device. The women, the lawyers contend, were going from business to business to trap someone so they could then sue.
The state now has sued Miller twice over the same incident. In the first case, a judge ruled Miller’s refusal was protected by the First Amendment. The state said it was simply dropping that case and relaunching an identical new one.
