Last month, the Daily Wire reported that the Supreme Court invalidated the ruling of a Washington state court against Arlene’s Flower owner Barronelle Stutzman. The high court ordered the state to reconsider its ruling against a florist who served a gay couple for over ten years but would not do their wedding flowers based on her religious convictions.
The religious freedom organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), had taken up her case, as they did with Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who also received a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court.
The following is an interview with Mr. Phillips and her ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner in which they discussed the outcome of the case, its effect on Mrs. Stutzman, and what it means for religious liberty.
DW: What were you thinking when you heard about the verdict?
Barronelle: I was very grateful and hopeful, especially after they ruled in (Masterpiece Cakeshop’s) favor. I’m hoping to get the same ruling when it goes back before the lower court.
DW: This case has been going on for six years. How has it affected your business?
Barronelle: It has affected our shop. We do not accept weddings at the moment because of the lawsuits. So, we’ve lost that potential income that those customers could bring, but we’re also very grateful for people supporting us.
DW: Arlene’s Flowers has a rich history in the community. How did your friends and neighbors react to the situation?
Barronelle: The community has continued to shop at our store and have supported us. We’re very thankful for that.
DW: Mrs. Waggoner, some are suggesting that because SCOTUS did not overturn the case, but sent it back to the lower court, it could go either way. It is not a definite win. What is your response to that?
Mrs. Waggoner: My response is that the Supreme Court gave a definite ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop. That ruling clearly says that the government cannot engage in hostility again people of faith. There is no place for that in a diverse society. Baronelle has experienced that kind of hostility from the state government in Washington.
The high court vacated that decision. The decision that says she loses her case is no longer in place. And the lower court is required to revisit her case in light of what was said in Masterpiece.
It may not be a final determination in all respects, but it is a win that her case has to be reconsidered in light of what the high court said.
DW: Are you expecting a positive outcome in Washington state court?
Mrs. Waggoner: I’m hopeful in the end that Baronelle will prevail but even if she doesn’t, it will ultimately be the Supreme Court that decides these issues. We are hopeful in that as well.
DW: Barronelle, when you heard that the decision was about to be made by the Supreme Court, what were you expecting? Were you excited, cautiously optimistic, what were you thinking?
Barronelle: I was very hopeful and I’m pleased. I don’t want the government to tell me what I can and cannot create.
DW: Mrs. Waggoner, the Masterpiece Cakeshop and Arlene’s Flowershop cases both affect freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and even free speech. How do these two cases affect that?
Mrs. Waggoner: I think we’ve had a tremendous year at the Supreme Court. Not only were we able to prevail in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, but we were able to achieve that vacating of Barronelle’s case. Both of these cases were about compelled speech. When we look at them together, we are delighted that the court affirmed the right that all Americans have the right to speak messages that are consistent with their beliefs. The government cannot force them to write or create something against their convictions.
DW: Do you have anything you would like to add?
Barronelle: Americans should stand up for free speech and religion. Regardless of how you stand on marriage, just with our Constitution alone, we should take a stand now.
Mrs. Waggoner: First, it is important to point out that the Supreme Court said that the same rule has to be applied in the marriage debate. The government cannot tip the scale to co-opt private voices to speak messages or participate in ceremonies just because it matches an ideology the government wants to pursue.
Regardless of what side of the marriage debate you’re on, both sides deserve to be protected and neither side should be compelled to engage in something that violates a core belief that they have. It applies to a gay graphic designer as it does the Christian baker.
Second, I want to be clear that Barronelle served everyone who came into her shop, no matter their walk of life. She employed and served people who identify with as LGBT for years. She worked with the customer for ten years. It was one event that she declined.
That decision came just a couple of months after Washington redefined marriage so it was very new in that state.
She did it in the most kind, gentle way possible and recommended other flower shops to him who could do a good job. They talked, hugged, and he left.
She found herself then receiving a certified letter from the government saying you will violate your conscience or lose your business. You choose. That is unprecedented, how the Washington state attorney general handled that.
To conclude, I want to point out that the Washington AG used the Consumer Protection Act as a way to prosecute this case. That has never been done to someone in Barronelle’s situation. Ever.
When it has been alleged that someone violated anti-discrimination laws there, they just go after that person under those laws, but instead, he went after her under a different law just so he could get her.
Then he bypassed the human rights commission in Washington. Normally, it would go through there. But the attorney general decided to go through a different process so he could go after her right then and directly.
This is the only case in the United States involving a creative professional where the attorney general has sued the person personally. If he had just wanted to establish the legal principle, or set a rule, he only needed to sue Arlene’s Flowers. He wanted to hurt her so badly, he sued her personally and corporately.
Again, that is highly unusual and it has never been that way in any other case in Washington state.
The state continued to compare Barronelle to those who engaged in racial bigotry and wouldn’t serve African-Americans at the lunch counter. That is demeaning and it is disparaging of someone’s beliefs.