Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case of Christian Washington State Florist Who Refused Service for Homosexual Couple After Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling

Barronelle Stutzman, left, a florist who was fined for denying service to a gay couple in 2013, in Bellevue, Wash., last year.
Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would not consider sequels to its decisions this month on a baker who refused to serve a gay couple and on challenges to voting maps warped by politics.

In a pair of one-sentence orders, the court instead sent appeals in similar disputes back to lower courts for further proceedings, passing up opportunities to clarify its inconclusive rulings in some of the most closely watched cases this term.

One order told a lower court to reconsider the case of a florist in Washington State who had refused to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding. The justices vacated a decision against the florist from the Washington Supreme Court and instructed it to take a fresh look at the dispute in light of this month’s ruling in a similar dispute involving the baker, Jack Phillips of Colorado.

The case, Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington, No. 17-108, started in 2013, when the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, turned down a request from a longtime customer, Robert Ingersoll, to provide flowers for his wedding to another man, Curt Freed. Ms. Stutzman said her religious principles did not allow her to do so.

She said she should not have to participate in same-sex weddings, which had been recognized in Washington the previous year.

“Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage,” Ms. Stutzman wrote, “but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.”

The couple and the state both sued, and they won in the state courts.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Stutzman had violated a state anti-discrimination law by refusing to provide the floral arrangement. “This case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches,” the court said, quoting from the plaintiffs’ brief.

The Supreme Court had put the Washington case on hold while it considered the one from Colorado. But it ended up deciding the Colorado case on narrow grounds specific to the dispute, saying the baker there had faced religious hostility from members of a state civil rights commission that had ruled against him.

There were no similar factors in the Washington case, Bob Ferguson, Washington’s attorney general, said in a statement. “The court specifically found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of that case ‘has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility’ toward the religious beliefs of the business owner,” Mr. Ferguson said. “We are confident Washington courts showed no such hostility.”

Click here to read more.

SOURCE: NY Times, Adam Liptak