Washington Supreme Court To Hear Case of Florist Fined For Declining 'Gay Wedding'


A Washington florist who was fined for refusing to fulfill an order for a gay wedding will have her religious freedom case go before the state’s supreme court.

Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, was ordered to pay a fine for refusing to make a floral arrangement for a same-sex marriage ceremony in 2013.

Stutzman argues that making the floral arrangement would violate her religious beliefs and convictions.


For opposing gay marriage, she’s facing death threats and million-dollar lawsuits

Good for her. So far all she has had a hearing with the kangaroo court that is know as a State commission hearing. They are ruled by an administrative law judges who are appointed by the commission, who are not real judges , may not even have a legal background and are not bound by the rule of law that is observed in a normal courtroom setting. Most people don’t have the money to appeal their decisions. I am glad this woman did


Very interesting!


It’s amazing religious liberty is not able to protect these businesses from being bullied. I’m sure some florists will be willing to cater. Why harass someone who doesn’t want to sell you something?


I personally hate all these laws, though I certainly “get” the intent behind them. I myself WANT to know what businesses refuse to serve people who are different…I truly think it would work itself out if businesses could just say - no, I won’t serve this type of person or that type of person. Most businesses wouldn’t stay in business very long with those attitudes. Problem solved without government meddling.


Except it’s not “I won’t serve these people under any conditions”, but “I can’t participate in this ceremony in any way”. Show me where Ms. Stutzman or any of the other bakers, photographers or florists have turned away gay people qua gay people as opposed to having convictions that forbade them to participate in a sham of a sacrament.

If there was a epidemic of Christian bakers not selling gay people crullers or birthday cakes, or florists not selling get well bouquets to gays, then your comment might hold more water.


I’ll be praying for them :gopray:


Exactly!This exact point was brought up by Kasich,take your business elsewhere.Respect one’s religious freedom.However,that isn’t the issue,the real agenda is to stirup the pot!:mad:


I have truly not followed this particular story in any detail past skimming headlines, so I don’t necessarily understand your comment. I surely can’t speak to specific facts of what might have occurred in this situation.

If some business wouldn’t sell me something because they didn’t approve of me for some reason, I’d just got find another one who would sell me what I need. And then I’d tell anyone who would listen about the business who turned my business away.

My original remark stands in that I would prefer to know what business won’t serve what segment of society under what circumstances. I don’t want the government forcing people to serve anyone they don’t wish to serve. I think the problem would be solved pretty quickly without such interference.


When my daughter went to marry her girlfriend the judge refused to do it. So they found another judge and got married. No drama, no angry confrontations, no lawsuits.


I believe the best path for Christian businesses (like florists and bakers) is to have customers sign contracts for their larger services, and the contract will spell out that 20% of the profits of the sale will be donated to Traditional Marriage groups. If they make every customer sign the same contract, then there is no discrimination, and no chance at a lawsuit, and the people paying for the services will be forced to make a choice–are they willing to help Christian Traditional marriage groups advance their agenda…or will they just choose a different business.


Amen. That is truly the way that grownups handle these things.


a little bit of background on the case: I don’;t recall if both males pursued a cmplaint against her, but she and one of the two had done regular business, and it appears she knew he was homosexual. It was only when he requested that she prepare arrangement(s) for the “wedding” that she refused. Given that they had done business in the past, she thought he would understand.


I can’t speak to Washington, but in Oregon, the great majority of Administrative Law judges have, prior to their appointment, been attorneys.

Calling an administrative law hearing a kangaroo court shows a lack of understanding of what these courts can or cannot do. Their jurisdiction is limited; and that limitation is in the name: Administrative, as in administration.

So where there is a fine set up for a business that, for example, may discriminate in its service to the public (for example, refusing to do business with an Asian [racial discrimination]) an admin law judge could have a hearing on the evidence ( the Asian went in to buy flowers, was refused service, and has an independent witness), and the judge will review that the process of imposing the fine was followed by the agency (including, possibly, a hearing in front of a hearings officer.

If the admin law judge finds that the refusal occurred, and that the procedure for imposing the fine was properly followed, the fine will be imposed.

However, the admin law judge has no authority whatsoever to adjudicate whether or not (for example, the instant case) a regulation stating that one cannot refuse service based on marital status, or sexual orientation is or is not a violation either of State or Federal Constitutions. That is entirely outside their jurisdictions.

I am not sure how you distinguish if someone is or is not a judge. If the law creating the position of an administrative law judge calls them a judge, then factually that is what the state considers them to be.

Oregon has gone from the appointment of judges by the various commissions, to a central group of admin law judges independent of any commissions, but able to hear cases from all of them as appropriate. While the state commissions were very set against a central organization, it has been found to be working very well.

The fact remains that admin law is a restrictive set of law which does not focus on issues outside the adminsitrative process. That does not make it any less competent in deciding issues which are properly before it. Many, although certainly not all people who appear before it may be pro se - that is, representing themselves; and because of this the rules of evidence and procedure are more relaxed than in a State court - District or Superior. That also does not make it a kangaroo court; it errs on the side of the individual representing themselves.

They still need to know the law, and may feel they did not get a fair hearing; but the likelihood is that they lost for the same reason they ended up there in the first place - not knowing the law.


This case again?

What publication is “cbn news” that they put “gay wedding” in parenthesis? That’s not proper newspaper/grammatical style at all.

Anyone else notice that the customer has the name of the famous Robert G. Ingersoll--American lawyer, Civil War veteran, political leader, supporter of Agnosticism and orator of United States during the Golden Age of* Free Thought.*…
Wonder if they are related or if the similar name was on purpose or not.

For those who think the florist should be able to turn down this couple because their union goes against the florist’s beliefs…

Do you think a Jewish florist/baker should be able to turn down baking/arranging flowers for every Catholic or Christian wedding because the couple is living and marrying against their beliefs and–as they would believe–worshipping and marrying under a false messiah??





I’m an atheist, but part of me really, really wants Christianity to be true. I really, really want to be a fly on the wall for this conversation:

Jesus: Why should I let you in to my Father’s house?

Florist: I refused to participate the commercialisation of your sacraments…

Jesus: Oh, glad to…

Florist: for gays.

Jesus: Wait, what?

Florist: I wouldn’t commercialize your sacraments for gays. I refused to sell them flowers.

Jesus: But you did make a profit off of my church for straights.

Florist: I was persecuted for my stand.

Jesus: Oh, well that’s good. Because blessed are those who…

Florist: …so I fought it in a higher court. No way was I going to take that sitting down!

Jesus: So…are you familiar with what I said…at all?


Your example is a non-starter because the Jewish bakers don’t have a problem with the matter of Catholic weddings. Some Jewish groups have come out against elevating same sex relationships to marriage.


My experience in testifying, on a professional basis, before administrative law judges is that it is a riigged system where the outcome is predetermined and administrative judge does the bidding of the commissioners . My general distrust of the government heightened increasingly when I had to get involved in this process . Again I’m glad to see these people get this into the real court system where I suspect the outcome will be very different



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.