Religion
Related: About this forumJudge To Anti-Gay Florist: Religion Is Not An Excuse To Defy Anti-Discrimination Laws
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02/19/3624626/washington-florist-loses-religious-freedom-anti-gay-discrimination/BY ZACK FORD POSTED ON FEBRUARY 19, 2015 AT 9:03 AM UPDATED: FEBRUARY 19, 2015 AT 1:38 PM
Barronelle Stutzman
CREDIT: YOUTUBE/ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
A Washington state judge has ruled that florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlenes Flowers, broke state law when she refused to provide flowers for the wedding of Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. Stutzman, represented by anti-LGBT legal juggernaut the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), had been sued by the same-sex couple and the states attorney general for breaking both the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the states Consumer Protection Act. She countersued, seeking the right to engage in such discrimination based on her religious beliefs.
Though Stutzman has become a darling of the religious right for asserting her Southern Baptist beliefs about same-sex marriage, her arguments about religious freedom fell flat in court. Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom concluded in his decision that to accept any [of] the Defendants arguments would be to disregard well-settled law.
In fact, the case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others, Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the laws protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation address conduct, not beliefs. Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations. He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlenes Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is neutral and generally applicable to all people of all beliefs.
Ekstrom agreed that the States compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled and is not superseded by an individuals religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption operates to impose [the followers] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]
more at link
edhopper
(33,580 posts)says it is.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)edhopper
(33,580 posts)how regressive they can rule.
They have already done irrevocable harm, and will continue to do so.
I will not be shocked if they destroy Obamacare.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think taking down Obamacare would destroy them.
But when it comes to these "religious freedom" cases, I am not as optimistic.
I wish Obama would have the opportunity to appoint a few new judges before his term is over, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.
It must be extremely frustrating to be one of the liberals on the bench.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)Citizens United destroying the democratic Process and Hobby Lobby already ruined their legacy.
Not ruling favorably on Gay Marriage will cement it if that happens.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)so I don't think their legacy is yet destroyed.
But Obamacare and GLBT civil rights are issues that stretch across the political divide. Those two things surely would destroy their legacy, imo.
but future historians will look back at these rulings and see them as wrong both in terms of the law and morally.
stone space
(6,498 posts)edhopper
(33,580 posts)Their ACA/medicare at least didn't gut all of Obamacare, though the ruling did denied healthcare to millions.
But then they do things like hack away at voting rights.
Not much to admire in these rulings.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...I joined with 480 others (including many Christians as well as other atheists) in a nonviolent direct action sitting on the steps of the US Supreme Court and refusing to move, demanding that Bowers be overturned.
This was done in conjunction with the 1987 Gay Rights March on Washington.
We were released from jail 48 hours later, and 17 years after that, the US Supreme Court did finally overturn Bowers in Lawrence v Texas (2003).
The thing to remember is that the US Supreme Court is not the court of last resort.
The American People are the court of last resort.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)put in a President who wasn't elected.
Things can eventually be set right, but it can take decades to undo the damage.