|Barronelle Stutzman surrounded by supporters (choreographed by Alliance Defending Freedom) in 2016. The woman is enthralled by the attention.
via Elaine Thompson/AP
The hate group Alliance Defending Freedom is trying to raise money off of the floral bigot, Barronelle Stutzman. An unsigned email, Wednesday, asserts in the subject line “Targeted for Her Faith.” It goes on to ask: “Will you rally around Barronelle once again?” Translation: Will you send us some money which we might, or might not, use to press Stutzman’s case.
In 2013 Barronelle Stutzman decided that she would not sell flowers intended for display at a gay wedding “because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ.” Actually, I think that Jesus would have been happy to sell the damned flowers. Stutzman’s defiance of Washington’s nondiscrimination law began a legal adventure that continues to this day.
Stutzman’s case made its way to the United States Supreme Court. In June, 2018 the Court remanded the case back to the Washington Supreme Court to make a determination of whether or not there existed hostility to religion in light of the Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
On June 6, 2019 the Washington Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion. The Court reviewed Stutzman’s case and found it was handled neutrally and “avoided animus toward religion.” It again rejected Stutzman’s argument that arranging flowers for a same-sex wedding would violate her free speech rights under the First Amendment and would be tantamount to endorsing same-sex marriage.
These conservative Christian fanatics continue to insist that service equals approval. Perhaps they think that we are desperate for their approval which is neither sought nor required. We just want the goddamned cake or flowers.
If these people would simply accept the fact that service is a business transaction — money exchanged for goods and services — we could all go home and taxpayers would stop funding the court costs associated with these cases. Based upon the briefs in the original case it seems that Stutzman couldn’t wait for a gay couple to come along. My theory is that ADF was was priming wedding vendors, either directly or through pastors. The original intent was to create “victims” which would be used to sway public opinion.
According to ADF, Stutzman’s case has been re-submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. I can find no evidence that a new petition has been submitted. I am certain that they intend to do so. According to ADF:
It’s pretty rare to be involved in a case at the U.S. Supreme Court. But it’s even rarer for your case to be considered at the High Court twice – all in the span of a few years.
That’s exactly the situation Washington floral artist Barronelle Stutzman finds herself in.
And there’s a lot on the line.
If the Supreme Court declines to hear Barronelle’s case, allowing a Washington Supreme Court ruling against her to stand, she could lose her business and her life savings.
Barronelle won’t back down. But she needs your help.
It’s time to rally around Barronelle as she appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court once again! Will you help fight the injustice against Barronelle and others like her with your gift today?
Stutzman wasn’t targeted by anyone. She put this in play by refusing service in defiance of Washington law, If anyone was targeted it was the couple who were refused service. They were targeted for their sexual orientation by an old hag who wanted some attention. Over the last six years, ADF has schlepped Stutzman from venue to venue. Stutzman has relished being in the limelight.
Barronelle Stutzman is not going to lose either her business or her savings. She could have settled this matter for a very modest fine and an agreement not to discriminate in the future. This kabuki has been driven by ADF’s determination to get discrimination cases to the Supreme Court. They are hoping that the Court will find a religious exception to otherwise valid state and municipal nondiscrimination laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court remanded with instructions and those instructions were followed by Washington’s high court. SCOTUS avoided a decision on the underlying issue and will probably continue to do so … I hope. I have some further hope because, in the last session, the Court declined to hear the case of a discriminatory Hawaii B&B. The issues are identical. In fact, due to the intimacy the B&B might have had a better case than Stutzman.
Either way the money-beg is a scam. ADF has to update its prior petition to the Court but it will bear no further expenses unless the Court agrees to hear the case.