Barronelle Stutzman

Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman is facing two lawsuits for refusing to provide the flowers for a same-sex wedding in violation of Washington law, but now she has filed a countersuit with support from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom. The suit claims that Stutzman is entitled to religious conscience protections that allow her to ignore nondiscrimination protections, as ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt attempted to explain to WorldNetDaily:

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

ADF reports the Washington State Constitution uniquely protects the rights of conscience and religion, and the countersuit argues that Ferguson is “constitutionally precluded from compelling Stutzman to use her artistic skill to personally craft expressive floral arrangements” for a same-sex ceremony when it violates her religious beliefs and her conscience to do so, “particularly when there are many other florists willing, ready, and able to create floral arrangements” for such ceremonies.

Some lawmakers are trying to pass a law to justify discrimination in this way. When a staffer for one of those representatives was asked what a rural gay couple should do if all the local grocery stores refuse to serve them, he said “gay people can just grow their own food.” The fact that there may be other florists is irrelevant. Before the end of segregation, there may have been other lunch counters willing to serve African Americans, but that doesn’t mean the discrimination by some was not still a problem.

ADF isn’t wrong that the Washington Constitution refers to religious conscience protections, but Schowengerdt didn’t reference the entire provision:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

In other words, the state’s conscience protections are not without limits — they don’t justify violating the law or discriminating against an entire segment of the population. Stutzman’s case has clearly become a cause célèbre for conservatives, but by doubling down on defending her with a countersuit, ADF is making it quite clear that their intentions have little to do with protecting religion and everything to do with justifying anti-gay discrimination. As recent marriage equality votes in state legislatures have demonstrated, ADF’s argument isn’t very convincing.

The Beekman Boys, winners of The Amazing Race, own and run their own farm in New York.

A bill introduced in Washington state last week would allow people to use their “sincerely held religious beliefs” to justify discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. One activist started calling the bill’s sponsors to find out more about why they supported such a negative bill. His primary question was, “What are rural gays supposed to do if the only gas station or grocery store for miles won’t sell them gas and food?”

A staffer at state Sen. Mike Hewitt’s (R) office had a unique reply:

Well, gay people can just grow their own food.

The staffer refused to identify himself, and when others called Hewitt’s office, no further comment was offered. The staffer later backpedaled a bit, claiming “patience was lost, mistakes were made, and that’s it,” but still had no comment on behalf of Hewitt.

The question is a perfectly valid one. Conservatives often argue that if a florist, photographer, baker, or other business refuses service to a same-sex couples, there are plenty of others champing at the bit to support marriage equality. In urban areas, this may generally be true — but it’s not an argument that justifies discrimination. In rural areas, it may very well not be true. What if there is no local alternative? What if the only alternative is more expensive, of a lesser quality, or further away? The proposed bill doesn’t merely exempt those who provide services that might be related to weddings; it exempts all businesses. So it’s quite possible that a rural grocery store might be Christian-owned and attempt to refuse service to a same-sex family, and were this bill to become law, that would be perfectly legal.

If a lawmaker’s staffer is willing to suggest that the alternative for same-sex families is to be self-sufficient and cut off from society, that should be a clear indication that this bill’s sole intent is animus.

Washington Sen. Sharon Brown (R) swearing to uphold the equal protection of all her constituents.

Republicans in Washington state have proposed a bill that would allow businesses to openly discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation if they want to do so because of their religious beliefs. SB 5927 carves out a specific exception to the state’s nondiscrimination law that says only federal protections — which don’t include sexual orientation — apply when a person’s religious belief is “burdened”:

Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization’s freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual’s or entity owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience. This subsection does not apply to the denial of services to individuals recognized as a protected class under federal law applicable to the state as of the effective date of this section. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, philosophical belief, or matter of conscience may not be burdened unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.

Unsurprisingly, the bill’s sponsor is state Sen. Sharon Brown (R), whose district is home to Arlene’s Flowers, a business facing two lawsuits because it refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Conservatives have claimed that the nondiscrimination protections Arelene’s violated are tantamount to Nazi homofascism, a sentiment Brown seemed to echo by claiming, “There’s a glaring lack of protection for religion in state law.”

Barronelle Stutzman

The state of Washington has recently filed suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, for refusing to sell flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding last month. Even though they had been regular customers, she explained that she could not because of her “relationships with Jesus Christ.” That couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, are now threatening their own suit with support form the ACLU, but they have offered Stutzman a compromise to avoid the suit. Here are the conditions the couple’s lawyers provided to the discriminating florist:

• You agree not to refuse to provide flowers and other goods and services to any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.
• You agree to write a letter of apology to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll to be published in the Tri-City Herald.
• You agree to donate $5,000 to the Vista Youth Center, in lieu of payment of attorneys’ fees.

The Vista Youth Center provides social services to LGBT youth in the area with a goal of reducing bullying and harassment while promoting leadership development.

The lawyers’ letter also details the harm the couple has experienced as well as the history of attempting to justify discrimination with religious beliefs:

Your refusal to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding has hurt them very deeply. It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years. Your rejection is especially painful to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll because they felt they had a meaningful relationship with you and Arlene’s Flowers. More to the point of this letter, your conduct was a violation of Washington law. [...]

You told Mr. Ingersoll that you would not sell flowers for his and Mr. Freed’s wedding because of your religious beliefs. We respect your beliefs and your right to religious freedom. However, we live in a diverse country, and religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, may not be used to justify discrimination in the public spheres of commerce and governance. Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. Religious beliefs have been invoked to justify denying women the right to vote; to prohibit men and women of different races from getting married; and to support segregation in schools, businesses, and other public places. Just as courts have held that those forms of discrimination are not permitted, even on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs, so is discrimination based on sexual orientation unlawful.

Stutzman could face a $2,000 fine from the attorney general’s suit in addition to the couple’s complaint. According to her lawyers’ response to the state’s suit, she intends to fight and her legal team has already reached out to “a number of national non-profit organizations that are ready for the fight.” Indeed, the Family Research Council expressed its support for Stutzman, claiming that “religious hostility is in full bloom.” Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, FRC’s state affiliate, opined that “liberty is at stake for all of us,” encouraging supporters, “Don’t ignore the bully just because he hasn’t punched you in the mouth yet.” Neither group expressed concern for Ingersoll and Freed’s liberty.

In March, Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts in Richland, Washington refused to provide wedding flowers to Rob Ingersoll and his partner, even though they’d been long-time customers of the florist. After owner Barronelle Stutzman informed Ingersoll that she could not provide the flowers because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” Ingersoll shared his story online and the news went viral.

Now, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers for violating the state’s nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation:

FERGUSON: As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington. Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation.  If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same sex couples the same product or service.

The suit asks for a permanent injunction against future discrimination and a $2,000 fine for every violation. An employee at Arlene’s told KEPR-TV that “none of us will have any comment.” Stutzman’s attorney’s warned Ferguson that “a number of national non-profit organizations… are ready for a fight,” perhaps referring to groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which regularly defends individuals when it believes their “religious liberty” has been infringed upon.

It’s important to note that Stutzman would have been violating Washington law even if marriage equality had not passed in November. State nondiscrimination policies protect gay couples from any business that would try to refuse them service, whether the service was related to a wedding or not. Incidentally, ADF recently highlighted five examples of how same-sex marriage “threatens”  biblical beliefs, but none of them actually took place it states where same-sex marriage was legal.

Rob Ingersoll and his partner have been using the same florist, Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, in their home of Richland, Washington for years, but now that they are engaged to be wed, Stutzman says she can’t do the wedding. Her explanation for denying them service was her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” as she explained to NBC Right Now (KNDO):

STUTZMAN: And I just took his hands and I said I’m sorry I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ… We hire gay people. I have friends that are gay, that wasn’t the issue. The issue is that I just didn’t want to participate in the marriage. [...]

Because of public outcry, Stutzman posted a response on the Facebook page for Arlene’s Flowers:

Since that day, we have received many comments on same sex marriages. I believe, biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my conviction, yours may be different.

I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay.

I’m sure there are many places you can purchase flowers, if you choose not to purchase them from Arlene’s, because of your beliefs, then I certainly understand.

Watch a clip of her interview with KNDO:

Though he was extremely hurt by her rejection, Ingersoll expressed his regret for posting about it because he does say he respects her right to her views. Numerous attorneys have reached out to him because she blatantly violated Washington’s laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation. (HT: The Advocate.)

(Photo Credit: @TakaoYamada25.)

Though distribution of same-sex marriage certificates began in Washington on Thursday, the state’s three-day waiting period prevented actual weddings from taking place until Sunday. One of the first couples to marry just after midnight on Sunday morning (pictured above) was ironically married by Judge Mary Yu, who volunteered to take the late shift.

Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) noted the momentous occasion on The Huffington Post Sunday:

We have few occasions in life to be witness to extraordinary history. This is one of those days. Today same-sex couples in Washington are getting married under a law approved by the voters. For the first time in the United States, their marriage is legal not because of actions by legislatures or courts but because their equal rights were affirmed by their peers across the state at the ballot box. That shift is momentous and one of which I am incredibly proud. [...]

As my own daughters taught me, this is indeed the civil rights issue of our time. There will come a time when, across our country, the ability to marry the person you love will not be an issue. Future generations will look back and wonder why we ever denied this basic human right. We can’t rest until that moment. I will be with you every step of the way.

See many more photos from the day’s celebration from Seattle Gay News, The Seattle Times, and the many marriages that took place at Seattle City Hall.

Among the couples who married yesterday was Dan Savage and his husband Terry Miller. The two married in Canada in 2005, but were eager to recommit their vows to each other in their home state and home country. And according to Savage, they planned to celebrate afterward.

(Photo Credit: kateleroux/Instagram)

First couples to get licenses in King County (via Joe Mirabella).

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) certified the state’s election results Wednesday afternoon, and this morning at 12:01, same-sex couples began legally obtaining marriage licenses. Washington does have a three-day waiting period, however, so the first weddings cannot take place until Sunday. Many couples were on-hand at the King County (Seattle) and Thurston County (Olympia) auditors’ offices at the stroke of midnight to be among the first to get their licenses.

One of those couples was JP Persall and Diana Wickman, who have been together for 10 years. They both served 22 years in the U.S. Coast Guard, where they managed to meet and fell in love in spite of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The couple who received the very first marriage license, though, was Jane Abbott Lighty, 77, and Pete-e Peterson, 85, who have been together over 35 years. They met on a blind date in 1977 and believed they would die before they could legally wed.

Also on hand was Dan Savage. He married his husband Terry Miller in Canada in 2005, but decided to use the occasion to renew their vows now that it’s legal in the state where they live (in the country where they live). Here are a few more pictures from this morning’s historic milestone, courtesy of Joe Mirabella:

Jane Lighty and Pete-e Peterson

John Bretweiser and Stuart Wilber

Dan Savage and Terry Miller

In just over a week from today, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in Washington. To prepare for this milestone, the state is preparing gender-neutral paperwork that no longer uses language like “husband,” “groom,” “wife,” or “bride.” This simple change to “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” will prevent same-sex couples from having to designate one partner into an identity that doesn’t match their gender. This should be a simple technicality, but Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. believes this “sea change” will ripple across society and have a “tremendous impact” on all marriages:

JOHNSON: This is a sea change. This is a big anthropological change. This will change society in Washington and other states forever… The issue becomes, in terms of gender neutrality, in terms of saying ‘I’m a spouse, I’m not a husband or wife, I’m not a bride or groom, I’m someone about to be married’ — where does it go? [...]

It’s not about gay marriage, it’s about what happens to heterosexual marriage and how those partners are defined, and how those relationships go forward in our society. It’s going to have a tremendous, tremendous impact… Watch this, see what happens. This is going to be a big, big, sea change in our society and how the smallest of our children understand relationships between parents, between husband and wife, between mother and father.

Watch it (via Mediaite):

Johnson’s bizarre overreaction to a basic government form does reveal some basic assumptions inherent among those who oppose marriage equality. At the root of all anti-gay views is bias toward gender norms and different roles for men and women. Same-sex couples willfully defy this archaic stereotype by proving that the construct of one male breadwinner and one female homemaker is not the only path to success for families. Society can and hopefully someday will function without such sexism, and if that means Johnson will lose some of his male privilege, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Teresa Guajardo and Tina Roose tour the Capitol with their neice. (Photo Credit: Chelsea Krotzer, The News Tribune.)

Back in February, Teresa Guajardo and Tina Roose reserved the Washington Capitol Rotunda for December 15 to hold their wedding. Roose calculated that would be the first Saturday after marriage equality becomes law assuming voters passed Referendum 74. In addition to a tribute to the legislature for passing the law, Roose explained that the Capitol reservation was “an act of faith in the voters of the state of Washington.” Now, the couple wants to open their reservation to any other same-sex couples who want to join them:

GUAJARDO: We just said, “Let’s share the joy.” Let’s share the fun and give everybody an opportunity to have a beautiful event in a way that’s somewhat easy.

They have ordered cake for over 200 and are inviting other couples to join them via Facebook. Their wedding will begin at 12:30, then other couples can get married from 1-2:30 on the Rotunda’s various balconies as receptions are ongoing above that.