Richland, WA – Judge: Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Broke Law

    21

    Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)Richland, WA – A judge has ruled that a florist in Washington state who refused to provide flowers to a gay couple for their wedding violated state consumer protection and anti-discrimination law.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    In an opinion Wednesday, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom rejected arguments from the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland that her actions were protected by her religious freedom.

    He said that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren’t necessarily. Courts have long held that lawmakers can prohibit discriminatory conduct, and the judge said florist Barronelle Stutzman broke the law when she refused to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding in 2013.

    Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington welcomed the ruling.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    21 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    9 years ago

    A business can sell to whomever they like. This is just crazy. Next thing you know, the bums on the street will get ACLU to fight for their rights to be served liquor in a fancy bar. PC gone absolutely nuts.

    YossiP
    YossiP
    9 years ago

    The judge said that “… while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren’t necessarily.”- There was no ACTION based on those beliefs, there was an INACTION. You shouldn’t be able to force anyone to do a action if they believe it to be immoral. Homosexuality is a perversion, and if that bothers you-too bad!

    LionofZion
    LionofZion
    9 years ago

    Liberals are the most intolerant people around. Everybody can do whatever they want to do-unless it violates liberal principles and then it is forbidden.
    This ruling is good in that it will create a backlash by people who can now see where these equal protection rulings lead.
    What is next? Is a wedding hall required to host same sex weddings? Is a band required to perform? How about a synagogue, can it get sued for trying to turn people away?
    Maybe you Jews in Brooklyn want to reconsider voting for Democrats your entire lives.

    9 years ago

    Its not just Brooklyn Jews who vote like PC zombies. They are all over – I guess they feel guilty for having worked hard to get where they are & aren’t sponging off the government.

    JackC
    JackC
    9 years ago

    An opposite point of view. The florist is in the business of supplying flowers, not of performing a wedding. It is a commercial action that requires equal accommodation. Doesn’t anyone here remember restricted hotels and separate bathrooms any longer?

    9 years ago

    what is a Christian florist won’t sell flowers to Jewish wedding because it’s is HIS BELIEVE that the wedding must take place in a church, if gay marriage is allowed in that state and you don’t provided the flowers because its a gay marriage this is basically first degree discrimination

    Realistic
    Realistic
    9 years ago

    A business has to serve everyone equally. F they’re selling flowers, it’s non of their business what kind of wedding it is.

    They didn’t order gay services, all they ordered, is flowers.

    Voice-of-Reason
    Voice-of-Reason
    9 years ago

    Before everyone goes ahead and bashes the legal system in the USA remember that us jews have been discriminated and still continue to be discriminated against. Sometimes the legal system is not something that used discriminately. Liberty and justice for all is our pledge of allegiance. If you don’t like that you can move to Iran.

    cyrano
    cyrano
    9 years ago

    To my mind, the moral issues are quite easily resolved. Any activity, which if followed by all mankind, will result in the extinction of the species must be considered anti-social behavior. It’s really that simple.

    If all human were black, Jewish or Asian, the world will continue just fine. If however everyone were exclusive homosexual, in 80 years there will be no homo sapiens left. That is why even if homosexual activity were to be tolerated it ought not be encouraged.

    Aside from the fact that the Jewish faith forbids promoting such marriages, simple logic would suggest the same.

    Agudas Yisroel of America ought not waste time lobbying the government for tuition assistance for Yeshivahs, where chances of success are slim to none, and even if successful will result in the magnificent largesse of $400 per child. I’ll all choked up from gratitude. The ruling of this judge presents a far greater threat to Judaism, and this should be where the Agudah draws a line in the sand. Better that all Yeshivahs close down, challilah, than have this ruling be forced upon us.

    Agudah, get your priorities straight!

    DrGee
    DrGee
    9 years ago

    I beg to differ.Being a Homosexual is not a civil rights issue.In fact it cheapens the
    whole struggle for civil rights in this country.Psychologist in 80’s bowed to political pressure not to classify being homosexual as aberrant behavior requiring treatment.One cannot change ones race and being a specific religion is ones’ conviction.Giving in to aberrant behavior is a sickness that requires diversionary treatment.To #5 using the bathroom is not business transaction selling flowers to whoever you like is.