Stutzman Case Summary
Washington state’s highest court unanimously ruled on February 16 against a florist who refused to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex couple’s wedding, deciding that her refusal was a discriminatory act.
The case involved 72-year-old Barronelle Stutzman, who denied services for the wedding of same-sex couple [insert names here] in 2012. Stutzman had served the couple previously, but said she could not provide services for the wedding out of concern that doing so would cause her to participate in the ceremony which is against her religious conscience.
A county court judge ruled in 2015 that Stutzman’s actions constituted a violation of Washington state’s laws on anti-discrimination, and Stutzman was thereafter fined $1,000 and $1 in court and legal fees.
The Thursday ruling upholds the lower court’s ruling.
“As Stutzman …show more content…
Stutzman and her attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom have expressed they will appeal to the Supreme Court.
“This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist,” ADF’s senior counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. “It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will. Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”
“Rob Ingersoll and I have been friends since very nearly the first time he walked into my shop all those years ago,” stated Stutzman, who is reported to have served Ingersoll for almost 10 years. “There was never an issue with his being gay, just as there hasn’t been with any of my other customers or employees … But now the state is trying to use this case to force me to create artistic expression that violates my deepest beliefs and take away my life’s work and savings, which will also harm those who I
The case involved 72-year-old Barronelle Stutzman, who denied services for the wedding of same-sex couple [insert names here] in 2012. Stutzman had served the couple previously, but said she could not provide services for the wedding out of concern that doing so would cause her to participate in the ceremony which is against her religious conscience.
A county court judge ruled in 2015 that Stutzman’s actions constituted a violation of Washington state’s laws on anti-discrimination, and Stutzman was thereafter fined $1,000 and $1 in court and legal fees.
The Thursday ruling upholds the lower court’s ruling.
“As Stutzman …show more content…
Stutzman and her attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom have expressed they will appeal to the Supreme Court.
“This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist,” ADF’s senior counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. “It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will. Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”
“Rob Ingersoll and I have been friends since very nearly the first time he walked into my shop all those years ago,” stated Stutzman, who is reported to have served Ingersoll for almost 10 years. “There was never an issue with his being gay, just as there hasn’t been with any of my other customers or employees … But now the state is trying to use this case to force me to create artistic expression that violates my deepest beliefs and take away my life’s work and savings, which will also harm those who I