Washington State Supreme Court Rules Against Arlene’s Flower in Sexual Orientation Discrimination Case

Just awhile ago the Washington Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling against Barronelle Stutzman and Arlene’s Flowers in the sexual orientation discrimination case over flower arrangements.

Read the ruling here.

The owner of Arlene’s Flowers, Barronelle Stutzman was fined as the result of refusing to provide a custom flower arrangement to a gay couple in Richland, WA. Stutzman appealed the fine and ruling to the Washington Supreme Court and today lost at that level as well.

The court held that Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Law was violated by Stutzman when she refused to provide services on the basis of her customer’s sexual orientation. Stutzman maintained that she did not discriminate on the basis of orientation but rather due to the fact that the customers wanted custom arrangements for a gay wedding. She had provided flowers for one of the gay men for years but balked at providing them for the man’s wedding.

I have asked the Alliance Defending Freedom organization for comment and will update this post throughout the day.

My question is what would ADF do if the reason for refusal of service related to a religious objection to miscegenation. Would ADF defend a store owner who –for religious reasons — refused to provide a custom arrangement to an African-American and white couple?

More to come…

""You're right, though as sexology, "homosexuality" is rather obsolete theory..""I don't understand what you mean ..."

Wishful Thinking, Forced Intimacy, and The ..."
"I would say it is more than "somewhat" better. Most people think working for someone ..."

Wishful Thinking, Forced Intimacy, and The ..."
"You're right, though as sexology, "homosexuality" is rather obsolete theory..However, something can be more than ..."

Wishful Thinking, Forced Intimacy, and The ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment