OLYMPIA — Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing floral artist Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case after the Washington Supreme Court ruled against her on June 6.
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the state High Court’s previous ruling against Stutzman and ordered it to reconsider her case in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. Without even holding an oral argument, the state court came back with the same result, repeating verbatim much of what it said in its original decision rather than reconsidering the case as the U.S. Supreme Court directed.
“Barronelle serves all customers; she simply declines to celebrate or participate in sacred events that violate her deeply held beliefs,” said John Bursch, an ADF vice president.
“Despite that, the state of Washington has been openly hostile toward Barronelle’s religious beliefs about marriage, and now the Washington Supreme Court has given the state a pass. We look forward to taking Barronelle’s case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Washington’s highest court read the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision as narrowly as possible, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court’s condemnation of government hostility toward religion applies only to adjudicatory bodies and no other branch of government.
As ADF attorneys explain, other U.S. Supreme Court decisions say the exact opposite. In fact, Stutzman’s argument that the state attorney general showed hostility toward religion is what caused the U.S. Supreme Court to send the case back in the first place.
In addition to giving Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson a free pass for religious hostility because he is not a judge, the Washington Supreme Court opinion ignored everything else that Masterpiece Cakeshop — and more recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions like National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 — had to say about free speech and expression, ADF attorneys point out.
Those opinions provide strong support for Stutzman’s claim indicate that states can’t force creative professionals who serve everyone to celebrate events or express messages that violate their faith.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress