is public knowledge that the owner of Arlene’s
Flowers in Washington state Barronelle Stutzman is in the middle of
a lawsuit, brought about by that state's Attorney General, Bob
Ferguson on behalf of the state because he did not like that the
Christian florist chose not to create flower
arrangements for a homosexual wedding. But that did not stop a
long time customer and known homosexual in the community from
requesting that Stutzman do such for his wedding.
Now the ACLU on behalf of the second homosexual couple that
requested her artistic skills at their wedding event is suing the
florist. It makes a person wonder if this was a trap. Perhaps every
homosexual couple in the State of Washington should get in on
this gravy train.
According to the Christian Post online,
"The ACLU is representing the male couple who were denied service by
Stutzman in March, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed of Kennewick."
According to Stutzman's lawyer, Justin Bristol, who I spoke
with by telephone, Robert Ingersoll, the known
homosexual, has been a long time customer of Stutzman's flower
shop, a flower shop that currently has a
homosexual employed there.
Robert Ingersoll has never
been denied service by Barronelle Stutzman's flower shop on the
basis of his homosexuality. And declining his wedding was not
because he is a homosexual, but rather because the marriage is a
homosexual marriage. If Robert Ingersoll's heterosexual parents had
sought out the florist for his homosexual wedding, the
Christian florist would have turned them down too. Her
discrimination is against the event, not the person himself. And
there is no law against that, not even an unconstitutional
The topic of civil rights is not an
issue in this case. That is unless a court of law wants
to say people have a civil right to force others to be
party to their events. This case is about constitutional
rights, such as the first amendment, which is not just for
And it is not just about freedom of religion. The
attorney made a good point of how the florist’s freedom of speech is
being violated. I will sum it up here: Putting flowers together for
a wedding is a type of speech, as is any art form. It is an artistic
expression of speech. As per the first amendment, the florist cannot
be forced to say something she does not want to say. And arranging
flowers for a homosexual wedding would be forcing her to
say with her art that which violates her conscience. --It is
interesting that in its first major case, the ACLU sued a school in
which a teacher was forced to express something that supposedly went
against his conscience.
Along with the
first amendment, the florist is also protected by the 13th and the
14th amendments. The 13th amendment protects the florist from
involuntary servitude and the 14th amendment gives her equal
protection of the law. In other words, it does not matter what other
laws say and or what they can be twisted into saying. The U.S.
Constitution trumps any law that would force a person into
involuntary servitude. And the constitution does not recognize
protected groups, but rather the 14th amendment denies one
group of people to be more protected than another.
Bottom line: Your freedom ends when it would
put me in chains.
For more information about
the first suit brought against this florist and if
you would like to help with her legal fees:
Regarding the first lawsuit, brought
about by the state's Attorney General, Bob Ferguson on behalf of the
state: Christian Post reported that Bob Ferguson said, "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." I believe it is safe to say that the florist
does not provide a homosexual wedding service to anyone. It is
And Ferguson's desire to use state law to force
the florist into providing a service that she does not wish to
provide is unconstitutional.
If nothing else, the
florist is due the same protection of the law as ministers that
are not forced to perform homosexual marriages against their will.
The first amendment is for everyone, not just churches. The
government cannot pick and choose who is protected and who is not.