Florist takes case to the Supreme Court

Washington State Supreme Court ruled Feb. 16 that Baronnelle Stutzman wrongfully discriminated against Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed, when she refused to arrange flowers for their same-sex wedding in 2013.

Shortly after the ruling, Stutzman announced that she and her lawyers would continue the case up through the Supreme Court, according to BuzzFeed News.

“You can’t buy me off,” Stutzman said, according to the Tri-City Herald. “You can’t destroy me and everything I’ve worked for and everything I believe in.”

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson does not believe the ruling will change if the case goes to the Supreme Court, according to

“It would be a significant understatement to say we are pleased by today’s ruling, and unanimous decision at that,” Ferguson said. “It’s a complete unequivocal victory for equality in the state of Washington and sends a clear message around the country as well.”

Stutzman’s attorney, Kristen K. Waggoner, does not believe the ruling exemplifies equality, according to the Tri-City Herald. Ingersoll and Freed could have obtained wedding flowers from a number of other Tri-City businesses.

“This case is about crushing dissent,” Waggoner said, according to the Tri-City Herald. “In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist.”

Ingersoll had been one of Stutzman’s regular customers for 10 years. Stutzman said she would have no problem selling bulk flowers and raw materials to Ingersoll, but considers creating flower arrangements an aspect of personal expression, according to the Tri-City Herald.

“I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ, I couldn’t do that, couldn’t do his wedding,” Stutzman said, according to BuzzFeed News.

'Florist takes case to the Supreme Court' has 1 comment

  1. March 15, 2017 @ 2:13 pm Tony Smith

    What about freedom? Not just freedom for “The Anointed Ones.” Freedom and liberty require the right of the citizen to refuse service to anyone–for whatever reason, not just because of a supposed religious objection. If we continue down this road, then 1) only the religious will be able to tell the royalty to stick it where the sun don’t shine, and 2) a wedge of hatred will be driven between the religious and the non-religious. We want neither! Why don’t we simply restore our country to the original freedoms and liberties guaranteed to every citizen in our original Constitution before The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created the royal classes?


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright 2015 BYU-I Scroll