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.”

Scott Lively's infamous book claiming the Nazis, including Hitler, were gay.

Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman faces potentially two lawsuits for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding in violation of Washington’s nondiscrimination protections. As conservatives rush to her defense, they seem all too eager to compare the gay community to the Nazi Party.

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, the Family Research Council’s state affiliate, believes the inability for businesses to openly discriminate is a sign that “brown shirts” are coming:

One wonders what our founding fathers, many of whom left Europe to get away from a religious and philosophical litmus test for being involved in civil society, would think about the Attorney General’s apparent suggestion that you must agree with, or at least cooperate with, the government dogma regarding marriage as a condition of running a business.

Someone looking for a business idea might test just how strong the market for brown shirts actually is in Washington State.

Meanwhile, the hatemonger Scott Lively claims that the laws protecting the LGBT community amount to “homofascism,” complete with his trademark pink swastika (via Jeremy Hooper):

State sues florist over refusing service for gay wedding

Homofascism is a form of extreme left-wing radicalism which attempts to establish rigid totalitarian controls over public discussions and policies addressing sexual morality, and to punish or suppress all disapproval of homosexuality and related sexual behaviors.

According to Godwin’s Law, invoking a reference to Adolf Hitler or Nazis counts as an automatic concession in any argument, but in cases like this, such references are particularly offensive. First of all, to refer to gay people as Nazis ignores the fact that the Nazis persecuted over 50,000 gay men, marking them with pink triangle concentration camp badges. Secondly, it is the gay men who were denied a public service — not the florist. Though conservatives are obviously trying to paint Stutzman as a victim, it makes no sense to paint the couple nor the attorney general as oppressors when the law is on their side.

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.