Dori at odds with AG’s explanation of florist-gay wedding lawsuit

A judge in Washington ruled this week that the state has authority to bring a consumer protection lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding, but KIRO Radio’s Dori Monson wonders if the state is on the right side of this issue.

“When the state of Washington said it was going to sue a florist in the Tri-Cities who didn’t want to provide flowers for a gay wedding, I wrote a piece on MyNorthwest.com where I said “freedom is under attack.”

Not because I think it’s good to refuse to sell flowers to a gay wedding. If I was in business, I’d do business with anybody. If I was a photographer or a florist, I would be happy to provide service to a gay wedding.

So it’s not that I think it’s the way I would live my life. But I don’t think it’s up to the state to tell somebody else how to live their life if it’s a belief based on principles, principles of faith in the case of this florist, and also principles of the state constitution.

I believe what the state of Washington is doing going after this florist is a violation of our state constitution.

Monson invited Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson on the show to explain the reasoning behind the lawsuit. Ferguson told Monson he believes the law is clear.

“It’s a consumer protection violation. In Washington state, our law is clear. We have a law against discrimination. That means you can’t discriminate against folks on the basis of religion, on the basis of race, on the basis of age, for example. Several years ago, our Legislature added sexual orientation as a protected group in our law against discrimination.

“Long story short, Washington state law says that in a consumer setting, i.e. you sell flowers, you’re in a restaurant, in a consumer setting, you cannot violate our state law against discrimination. If you do that, it’s an automatic violation of our Consumer Protection Law.”

But Monson countered, saying in his view, “there is a superseding law that is equally clear,” citing a section of the Washington state constitution:

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

“Are you not disturbing her right to be free in all matters of religious sentiment, which is guaranteed to every person and their property, which I would assume to be their business?” Monson asked Ferguson.

Ferugson said they are of course aware of that provision, but that there are limitations to religious freedom.

“If you choose to go into the marketplace and serve the public, if you do that, you cannot assert religious beliefs as a mechanism or a means to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex or sexual orientation.”

But Monson said, according to the constitution, it seems that the only exclusion for protection of religious freedom is for acts of licentiousness or practices inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

“Is a refusal to sell flowers for a gay wedding an act of licentiousness in any way?” asked Monson.

Ferguson said courts routinely examine both the state and federal constitutions and interpret it.

“Our Legislature and our courts have interpreted that when you run a business, you cannot assert your religious belief in a way that discriminates against individuals on the basis of their race or their religion or their sexual orientation,” said Ferguson.

“We are certain that the constitutional provision does not give the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, or the owner of any business, the ability to discriminate against someone based on their race or their religion or their sexual orientation.”

But Monson still doesn’t believe this case agrees with the constitution.

“Everything we do has to fit the constraints of the constitution, and the constraints are on government. That is what the constitution is designed to do, to put limits on government. I still haven’t heard a good answer as to how this lawsuit abides by our state constitution,” said Monson.

“I find it frightening that there are limits to the constitution that guarantee religious protection,” he said. “I completely disagree with the AG on this.”