Supreme Court rejects appeal from Christian florist who refused to serve same-sex wedding



The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to take up the case of a Christian florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, letting lower court rulings against the florist stand.

The court rejected an appeal from Barronelle Stutzman, a great-grandmother and owner of Arlene's Flowers & Gifts who was sued by the state of Washington in 2013 for violating state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By refusing to hear the case, the court once again sidestepped the issue of whether a business can claim a First Amendment right to refuse service for same-sex weddings.

That case is Arlene's Flowers v. Washington. Justices Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch indicate that they voted to hear the… https://t.co/KqnigDGfHi

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) 1625233791.0

It's a decision comes three years after the court narrowly ruled in favor of Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips, who had refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. In that ruling, the court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted hostilely toward Phillips' religious views by compelling him to make the cake, but did not go further than the specific facts of that case, leaving the general conscience rights of businesses in question.

That question now remains unresolved. Stutzman, a Southern Baptist, had argued that she was exercising her First Amendment rights by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a homosexual couple's wedding ceremony. She contended that her floral arrangements were works of art and that being forced to provide them for a same-sex wedding would violate her "relationship with Jesus Christ" and her freedom of expression.

"Religious people should be free to live out their beliefs about marriage," Stutzman's lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom argued in court filings, according to NBC News.

State courts had ruled that Stutzman violated Washington law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against several protected classes of customers, including homosexuals. The Washington Supreme Court said that providing flowers for a wedding "does not inherently express a message about that wedding."

Ria Tabacco Mar, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the gay couple Stutzman refused to serve, praised the Supreme Court's decision.

"No one should walk into a store and have to wonder whether they will be turned away because of who they are. Preventing that kind of humiliation and hurt is exactly why we have nondiscrimination laws. Yet 60 percent of states still don't have express protections for LGBTQ people like the kind in Washington state. Our work isn't over," she said.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch said they would have heard the case.

Washington Supreme Court opens door to forcing religious organizations to hire LGBT individuals



The Washington state Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision this week regarding legal exemptions for religious employers, in a move that could open the door to forcing religious organizations to hire LGBT employees.

In the original ruling passed down more than two years ago, King County Superior Court Judge Karen Donohue dismissed a bisexual attorney's complaint against Seattle's Union Gospel Mission after the attorney, Matt Woods, sued the mission for discrimination when it refused to hire him upon learning of his sexuality.

The mission, Donohue ruled at the time, was acting within its rights because as a religious nonprofit it was exempt from the state's anti-discrimination law regarding one's sexual orientation. But now the state Supreme Court has reversed that ruling and ordered that the case return to the lower court, the Seattle Times reported.

Seattle Times reporter Sydney Brownstone was careful to note that while the court's ruling doesn't altogether strike down the religious employer exemption it "questions whether that exemption applies to a staff attorney at a legal aid clinic." The decision, she noted, "could potentially open the door to more LGBTQ staffers working in social services at religious nonprofits."

And because many of the state's social service programs are run by religious organizations, the ruling could have serious ripple effects far beyond just homeless shelters.

In response to the new development, Woods said he was relieved.

"To get the affirmation from the court that religious organizations don't have a right to blanket discriminate against LGBTQ people for who they are no matter what the job is a big relief," he said. "Especially for members of my community that are so much more likely to experience discrimination in the workplace because of their race or gender identity."

The mission, one of Seattle's largest homeless shelter and service organizations, declined to comment when contacted by the Times.

The Times report adds that "local religious organizations have been undergoing a reckoning in recent years, as same-sex marriage has gained acceptance from the general public."

Though not directly related to the case in Washington state, the ruling certainly represents the kind of legal challenges that could arise for religious organizations should the Equality Act pass both chambers of Congress and be signed into law.

The legislation, which passed in the House last month, may soon threaten punishment against individuals and organizations who still hold to traditional beliefs about marriage, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

Joe Biden Bases His Transgender Policies On Fake News

We don’t need a president that falls for misleading information pushed by LGBT media or perpetuates false narratives in order to pander to a voting bloc.