Attorney: Florist who refused gay wedding job should have chance to argue case before jury

A Richland flower shop owner refused to provide flowers for the wedding of two gay men and now she will learn if she’ll be allowed to take her case to a jury.

In 2013, florist Baronelle Stutzman declined to make floral arrangements for the wedding of long-time customer Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed, saying her relationship with Jesus Christ wouldn’t permit it.

She referred the couple to another florist who was willing to do it, but Ingersoll decided to sue instead, as did the state Attorney General’s office.

Stutzman then counter-sued the Attorney General, and on Friday in a Kennewick courtroom, it will be up to a judge to decide how the case will proceed.

The state wants a “summary judgment” that Stutzman has clearly violated Washington laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Her attorney, Kristen Waggoner with Alliance Defending Freedom, says she should have the chance to argue her case before a jury.

“More than anything, we believe it’s premature to decide the case without having a full opportunity to develop a record. The constitutional defenses that Baronelle has, her right of free speech, and her right of the free practice of her religion is at issue in this case as well as whether she discriminated because of Mr. Ingersoll’s sexual orientation.”

Waggoner says it’s not reasonable to argue that Stutzman was discriminating because she arranged flowers for Ingersoll on many previous occasions.

“She had served this customer for nine years in an admittedly loving and kind way. Her objection was to the religious convictions she has about marriage. She again has lovingly and kindly served, and employed, those who identified as homosexual for years. So it’s not an issue about being gay. It’s an issue about a religious conviction on what marriage is.”

And there’s another interesting argument in this case outside of religious freedom, outside of discrimination: Stutzman’s attorney also argues that her floral arrangements are art, and art is a form of free speech, and the state cannot force an artist to speak against her will.

“The unique design she provides is compelling speech against her will. We don’t require artists, we don’t require speech writers, we don’t require painters to be compelled to speak something that goes to the very core of their conviction,” says Waggoner.

The attorney general’s office will argue that it has broad authority under the Consumer Protection Act to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.