Washington Supreme Court Upholds Ruling against Florist Who Refused to Serve Same-Sex Wedding


u.s.-justice-system
U.S. Justice System

(Worthy News) - The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld its previous ruling that a florist’s refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

The florist, Barronelle Stutzman, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, after Washington’s high court ruled that she illegally discriminated against a gay couple who wanted to purchase flowers from her shop, Arlene’s Flowers. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal, but ordered Washington’s Supreme Court to review the original decision to determine whether it was motivated by “religious animus.”

After a review, the justices of the Washington court found that they “did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination . . . by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple, and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution.” [ Source: National Review (Read More...) ]

Copyright 1999-2019 Worthy News. All rights reserved.
Fair Use Notice:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

3 thoughts on “Washington Supreme Court Upholds Ruling against Florist Who Refused to Serve Same-Sex Wedding”

  1. And why should this florist not be defrauded?
    While the rest of us are?
    Defrauded of our spouses, of our children, our homes, our careers, our jobs and businesses, too? We are slandered and lied about, so that no one will continue being our friends. We are defamed so that no one will hire us either. And this same attorney's working for her, turns the rest of us down, for being Messianic, instead of Christian. Then, we are told to go to work mopping floors at McDonald's, so one and all can ridicule and laugh us. And still, we will not turn from Jesus. Still, we will believe him right, and them the cruel ones.
    It is not right that they can not chose whom to serve, and whom not to serve. But then, why would she think she and her business do not warrant to lose her livelihood also, like the rest of us, whose fame in creative work can not, must not, compete with having humility before a God who can give and take away.

    Where were the attorney's when it was Christian wives being brutalized, terrorized, to testify against their own husbands, as the only option to free them from abuses at home. Then it turns out the Feminists they were forced to go live with (in their shelters) who were worse to them than 10 husbands. They tear families apart, parent from child, grandparent against grandson, friends and neighbors against friends and neighbors. Only medicating after first placing the invisible tattoo of a mental illness label, on the Victim(s). What a farce! But her attorney's did not chose to do a Class Action Suit for all the wives forced to testify against their own husbands in open court, in the federal and US states that allowed police Depts and sheriff's Depts, all over the USA, who for decades have just passed off their obligation to protect wives (any family member) being abused in their own homes. How many of their children are in this last lost generation? How many?

    All that is at stake for this florist is her shop. Her career. Wow. Are we really supposed to feel sorry for her? I am sure she could still find a job working for someone else. Or she could fold. What would Daniel have done? What would Daniel (of the Lion's Den) have done?

    (ESV) Mat 19:27-30  Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

    Has she not heard?

Leave a Comment