Washington State Supreme Court rules against florist who turned away gay couple

4 posts in this topic

Posted

In a victory for gay rights advocates, Washington’s Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against a Christian florist who was fined by the state for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

The justices agreed with a lower court that Barronnelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., violated a state civil rights law that bars discrimination in public businesses on the basis of sexual orientation. The court also ruled that the law does not infringe on her free speech.

The case is one of several involving Christian wedding vendors that have emerged in recent years amid a dramatic expansion of gay rights. Social conservatives have argued that the legalization of same-sex marriage, and the proliferation of state and local laws barring discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation, have led to a trampling of religious liberties. They contend that the government should not be forcing these vendors to contribute their artistic talents to same-sex ceremonies, which they oppose on religious grounds, and that the vendors might end up having to abandon their profession to avoid violating their religious beliefs.

But as in Washington, courts have largely sided with the couples and government officials who have called their actions unlawful discrimination.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal organization representing Stutzman, pledged Thursday to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/17/washington-state-supreme-court-rules-against-florist-who-turned-away-gay-couple/?utm_term=.ab0805c87bb6

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wish we had more confidence in the US Supreme Court these days but, regardless, I'm glad to see issues like this one win another court battle. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ya know, sometimes, the poor, improper or inappropriate wording of an article ticks me off just as badly as the issue being reported --

"The case is one of several involving Christian wedding vendors that have emerged in recent years amid a dramatic expansion of gay rights."  --Sandyha Somashekhar, washingtonpost.com

Gay rights... Have not.  Been.  "Expanded."  AND, the rights that have been finally afforded gay people, aren't "gay" rights, but simply rights - rights that straight, cisgender people already enjoy/ed, liberally garnished with entitlement and impunity.  Gay people are NOT getting any special treatment or any special rights - they are not being given something that others are not getting.  It's the other way around - it's the straight/cis people who are getting what must be "special" rights.  They must be special - 'cause we don't ALL get them.  People who just happened to be gay WEREN'T getting what everyone else already had.  Rights that should never have been denied to begin with.

And of course, the same exists for trans people.  Being different equates to getting less, and having what little you do have - taken away from you!  You have the nerve to ask for what you deserve, and suddenly... those rights become "special."

Wow.  Just, WOW.

:angry:

::: steps down off soapbox :::

Anyway - yay! Washington State Supreme Court.  We can only hope for our gay brothers and sisters that the US Supreme Court will side with Washington if the case goes that far.


 

censored.gif

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Excellent point Michael, I missed that. You look good on that soapbox. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now