United States Supreme CourtThe decision on Friday not to try the case of the floral artist Barronelle Stutzman puts religion and freedom of speech in a state of uncertainty. But one thing is very clear: the radicals and their powerful legal and corporate allies are ready and able to overthrow a humble Christian grandmother just because they believe in her faith.
Barronelle is a 76-year-old floral artist in Richland, Washington, and I represent him. For nearly 10 years, she has been serving her friend and client Rob Ingersoll-making custom floral arrangements for special occasions, including Valentine’s Day and anniversary celebrations for Rob and his partner. But when Rob asked her to make arrangements for his same-sex wedding, she politely declined, explaining that she could not celebrate events that violated her sincere belief in marriage.
Barronelle introduces her friends to other florists she trusts, and they will do well. They gave a hug, and then he left. She thinks that they are separated only by friends who have different views on marriage. However, neither the history of Baronel and Robb nor her long-term employment of gays and bisexuals are enough to prevent her from being bullied by progressive bullies.
In an unprecedented lawsuit, the Washington State Attorney General sued Barronelle with Personal ability, even if no one has filed a complaint with the state government. The American Civil Liberties Union subsequently filed a second lawsuit. Since then, the League for Defense of Freedom has been defending her in court.
In 2017, Barronelle filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court sent her case back to the Washington Supreme Court for reconsideration. Masterpiece cake shop. In the case involving Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips (I also had the honor to represent him), the High Court made it clear that government officials must not be hostile to religions or religious believers. However, the Washington Supreme Court disregarded the apparent hostility of state officials and ruled against Baronel for the second time and copied most of its first ruling verbatim.
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Baronel’s day in the Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union can ask her to pay a huge amount of attorney’s fees-possibly seven figures-because she politely refuses to violate the religious beliefs that inspired her. Serve others through her floristry. This is not justice.
The owner of the family business in this small town serves everyone; she simply cannot express all the information or participate in all the ceremonies.however Washington Attorney General, American Civil Liberties Union, Human rights movement, Amazon, Microsoft Line up with many others to be a role model for her. This is the worst example of abolishing culture, weaponized by state governments and large companies through the court system. This is an insult to our nation’s principles of nation-building.
Although the precedent for this case is limited to Washington State, it reflects a growing trend. State and local governments are using Orwellian-style “anti-discrimination” laws to deal with powerless people like Baronel, threatening them with financial losses and even criminal penalties and imprisonment. They let many ordinary Americans guess the extent to which the promises of the First Amendment really apply to them.
Justice Neil Gorsuch (who wanted Accept Baronel’s case) noticed in his Fulton v Philadelphia Agreed two weeks ago. He stated that “individuals and groups across the country will pay the price-in dollars, time, and continued uncertainty about their religious freedom” until the Supreme Court clarifies the law on this issue.He discussed in detail the consequences of the incident Masterpiece Cake Shop case.Jack Phillips is still Was dragged through court – just last month in Colorado District Court Ruled on him Because he rejected the request of transgender activists that he made a cake to celebrate “gender transition.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday was a serious miscarriage.It will only cause confusion and legal exposure for others, such as Kentucky photographer Chelsey Nelson with Colorado web designer Lorie SmithWe have to ask how many Barronelles and Jacks are needed before the madness stops, and we return to first principles.
The courts will have plenty of opportunities to help curb the trend and return to these principles. The Chelsey or Lorie case may reach the court, and several other ongoing cases may also be submitted to the court—including another case that may come from Washington State. In terms of protecting important First Amendment freedoms, any one of them will provide judges with plenty of options.
When it comes to perceptions of marriage and human sexuality, there is a genuine difference. Allowing the government to force individuals to express messages or celebrate ideas that violate their beliefs is not the path to a tolerant or durable republic. At the end of the day, Arlene’s Flower The case goes beyond the injustice against Barronel and marriage issues; the question before us is whether we can debate these issues.
The First Amendment promises that Barronelle and other creative professionals can freely and peacefully pursue their passions and talents based on their religious beliefs. ADF will continue to fight alongside them. The tradition of freedom we celebrated over the past Independence Day weekend is not inferior.
Kristen Wagoner is League for the Defence of FreedomShe argued Arlene’s flower Supreme Court in Washington And masterpiece cake shop In the Supreme Court of the United States.Follow Christine on Twitter @KWaggonerADF Or follow ADF @AllianceDefends.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author.