The Governments Crackdown On Christian Businesses
I have a question for all. When do the progressive liberal machinations, which so seek to erode the states and the people of our constitutional rights, end?
It was assumed that after the last round of legislation from the bench via Obergefell v. Hodges, that the redefining of the Constitution had come to a close. What more could the judicial activists seek to change? But alas, something far more deceitful was underway.
Lower courts across the country are no longer harping for new definitions and changes to the Constitution but instead have begun attacking the original principals held within them. A crusade had begun which laid siege to every last amendment and right progressives found disgusting or a relic of the old and evil America. Laws were enacted and upheld which came in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
The increasingly narrow line between federal and state power was pushed to always favor the bureaucrats in Washington. Judges were no longer acting as umpires, watchers, and rule keepers that never took sides, but instead began acting as junior politicians wielding power to craft legislation according to their own desires.
Now, unsatisfied with the midterm election results, there is talk of re-apportioning the number of Senators each state is entitled to. Never mind that, quite literally, the one and only part that can’t be amended without universal ratification by the states is “equal suffrage of the Senate.” But for a progressive, the Constitution is more of a guideline: great to follow when convenient, but fine to be ditched the second it doesn’t bend itself to your ideology.
Progressives know no bounds when it comes to promoting their ideology through the courts, and the most common victim of this crusade has been the First Amendment.
Lately, we’ve seen a litany of important First Amendment cases appear before the Supreme Court, chief among them the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which found that the state of Colorado, as well as the Attorney General, had demonstrated “hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs” of the defendant.
But one case, currently being reviewed by the Washington State Supreme Court, stands as a perfect example of how a progressive ideologue in a progressive court with progressive judges can make an attack successful on clear First Amendment Rights.
The Arlene’s Flower lawsuit, currently under review, serves as a stark reminder of the lengths progressives will go to trample the First Amendment and remake society according to their will.
Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, has served the people of Richland, Washington for decades. Her business has been the go-to for birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and weddings. As well as providing pre-made floral arrangements for every individual regardless of sexual orientation, Mrs. Stutzman has employed multiple gay and lesbian workers and has stated that she will continue to do so. Her love for people and respect for those of all walks of life extends from her personal life directly to her business.
But Mrs. Stutzman is also a dedicated Christian, so much so that she closes the shop every Sunday in respect of her religious beliefs.
Her faith was put to the test when longtime customer and friend, Robert Ingersoll, asked her to personally provide the floral arrangements for his gay marriage. Stutzman was immediately conflicted on the matter. She had provided numerous floral arrangements for Mr. Ingersoll in the past and continues to do so for all same-sex couples, but asking her to violate her religious beliefs was a different matter entirely. After a long night of prayer, she decided her relationship with Christ was paramount and that she could not, in good faith, participate in a ceremony that violated her religious beliefs.
After sitting Mr. Ingersoll down and sincerely explaining why she couldn’t provide his floral arrangements, she gave him the names of three other florists who would be happy to provide the arrangement and the two left as friends. Following the interaction, Mr. Ingersoll’s partner posted about the incident on Facebook saying that he understood Stutzman’s decision from a “political and religious” perspective.
This post provoked the ire of the media, as they scrambled to direct all attention towards Mrs. Stutzman and her business. While Mr. Ingersoll and his partner received an “amazing outpour of support,” Mrs. Stutzman received numerous “hate-filled phone calls, emails, and Facebook messages” with “explicit threats against [her] safety, including a threat to burn down [her] shop.”
A small town incident involving two friends had suddenly become the subject of a media firestorm which threatened to ruin Mrs. Stutzman’s business and personal livelihood.
The media hype quickly grabbed the attention of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson who took it upon himself to file suit not only against Arlene’s Flowers, but also against Stutzman herself. The ACLU quickly joined in, representing Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed, and sued in the same capacity.
It should be noted that Mr. Ferguson took it upon himself to file suit without an original complaint from Mr. Ingersoll or Mr. Freed.
Both the Benton County Court as well as the State Supreme Court found that Stutzman had violated Washington Anti-Discrimination Laws, that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected speech and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding does not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Stutzman immediately filed a petition to seek a writ of certiorari in order for the Supreme Court to review her case. In light of the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and sent the case back to the Washington State Supreme Court for further consideration.
This is the living hell Stutzman has been through for the last 5 years. She has had her finances continuously drained through legal battles and has dealt with multiple threats to her business and livelihood, all to protect her personal right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The State Attorney General and the ACLU are acting in bad faith. The utter contempt for Christian values shows clear in their endless pursuit of Stutzman and her practice.
The clear contempt for Mrs. Stutzman's religious values is evident in the Attorney General’s refusal to prosecute a gay coffee shop owner who berated and refused service to multiple Christian patrons in October 2017. After learning that the customers were distributing religious material outside his shop, the owner told them he was denying service and angrily yelled, “Leave, all of you! Tell all your f---ing friends, ‘Don’t f--- ing come here!’”
The Attorney General received numerous complaints asking to sue the owner in the same vein as Stutzman was sued. Instead, the attorney general simply sent a resolution advising the owner that people had filed complaints and offered to act as a neutral party in resolving the matter. When the owner didn’t respond, the Attorney General did nothing—he closed the files and didn’t pursue the matter further.
The actions of the coffee shop owner are a clear violation of Washington's multiple Anti-Discrimination Laws and should be fully prosecuted. The lack of equal treatment under the law demonstrates the animosity held by the state government towards Mrs. Stutzman and other members of the religious community.
The Attorney General has also demonstrated a lack of sincerity for Mrs. Stutzman's religious beliefs by making comparisons to those which would take us “back to the 1960’s and lunch counters” and slamming her faith as one which “for decades offered a purportedly ‘reasoned religious distinction’ for race discrimination.” This clear attempt to undermine and demean a person's religious views by comparing them to some of the evilest thoughts in our country's history is incredibly insulting to Christians and is disgusting coming from an elected official who’s expected to view all as equal under the law.
Stutzman's role during weddings is an incredibly personal one. She spends weeks delicately preparing each arrangement as an extension of herself. Her arrangements are her art and represent a personal piece of her. She communicates with the couple over a period of months and attends the ceremony to attend to the flowers and clean up afterward. Her religion teaches her that all marriages, whether in a church or somewhere else, have deep spiritual significance.
The injunction from the Washington Supreme Court would demand Stutzman to attend and participate in same-sex weddings or exit the industry altogether.
In light of her views, requiring Stutzman to attend would be in direct violation of the Free Exercise Clause as it would force her to act against her faith. Like compelled attendance, the idea that a person should choose between violating her religious principles or face the loss of her personal business is a gross violation of everything the Founders stood for.
Her clear respect for LGBT people in the form of hiring and continuing to sell and make every floral arrangement that does not require her to attend a religious ceremony shows her respect for everybody and kindness towards all. Her only stipulation is that she not be forced by the state to attend and actively participate in ceremonies which violate her beliefs.
LGBT people are afforded the freedom from state-involvement in personal matters. They are allowed to live without the state willing their views upon them, they don’t fear financial ruin in response to them standing for their beliefs. These freedoms should be afforded to Mrs. Stutzman as a woman simply exercising her guaranteed right under the First Amendment.
Barronelle Stutzman has been engaged in a five-year legal battle. It will most likely continue even longer as the Washington Supreme Court likely won’t hear her case until its spring term. I call upon the State Court to act as judges; to put aside the partisan beliefs and recognize that the rights protected by the First Amendment apply to all individuals regardless of their affiliations or specific religious beliefs.
Whether you agree with her beliefs or not, Barronelle Stutzman deserves equal protection under the law and she should not be forced to attend ceremonies or create art which violates her sincerely held religious beliefs. The State Court has a chance to do right by Mrs. Stutzman and set a precedent which shows that traditional values and beliefs protected by the Constitution will not be put under siege by progressive bureaucrats who abuse their position. Let's hope they reach the correct verdict.
-
Monetary donations can go towards her legal fund here: