Back to the U. S. Supreme Court After State Once Again Rules Against Florist’s Freedom of Religion

Florist, Arlene Flowers who refused to provide a floral arrangement for gay couple’s wedding in 2013.

In a hotly anticipated decision, the WashingtonSupreme Court ruled against a florist who was fined for not providing services for a gay couple’s wedding.

The court had previously heard the case, State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, ruling that Barronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for refusing to make floral arrangements for a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman claimed that she was only acting in accordance with her religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the state high court to take another look at whether it violated her religious rights by not being neutral to her religion when making its decision.

That court said no.

“We now hold that the answer to the Supreme Court’s question is no; the adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination … by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple,” the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling said, “and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution.”

The U.S. Supreme Court held off on reviewing the case so that the state court could take another look in light of the 2018 SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That case drew national attention, as it pitted the First Amendment against LGBT rights.

The high court declined to get involved in that battle, however, ruling in favor of the baker by stating that the Colorado commission was improperly hostile to his religious beliefs when they found him in violation of a state law. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Washington Supreme Court to make sure they did not make the same mistake.

In the new decision, the Washington Supreme Court defended its initial ruling, stating that the state’s public accommodation law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and that Stutzman discriminated against Robert Ingersoll because he was marrying a man.

Continue reading here.

[Editor’s Note: This article was written by Ronn Blitzer and Bill Mears and originally published at Fox News. Title changed by P&P.]


Bringing you discernment news and commentary from a biblical, polemical perspective means it is tough out there on social media. We’re constantly getting kneecapped and constrained by tech companies who find our fidelity to the scripture and pursuit of truth to be intolerable, resulting in our reach being severely throttled.

For this reason, we ask you please consider supporting us a few different ways. The first, by liking and following our new Facebook page, our home where we share new posts and interact with our members. The second, by following and retweeting our Twitter page. The third, by signing up for our newsletter below.

And last, through direct support. You can catch our free weekly episodes of the Polemics Report by subscribing at BTWN. If you like what you hear and desire to hear more, you can get the VIP full-length version for only $5.95 per month on Patreon. Also, you get other freebies for additional monthly pledges.

Subscribe to us on Patreon here and support our ministry.

God bless!

Stay informed. Subscribe Today.

When you subscribe, please add to your contacts to ensure that your newsletter doesn’t go into your spam folder.

Enter your email address below…

Contact Us Donate

Facebook Comments
Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro
Ad Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. If you would like to go ad-free, please purchase a full subscription on Substack.