After A Decade of Litigation, 77-Year-Old Barronelle Stutzman Retires And Settles Arlene's Flowers Case for $5,000

She couldn't wait any longer for the Supreme Court to rule on her case.

When you read a Supreme Court decision, it is often easy to forget that real-life people are involved. And often, litigants have to wait years to reach a final judgment. Some have to wait longer than others. A prime example is Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Washington. Her case has been pending in the courts for nearly a decade. It was GVR'd following Masterpiece Cakeshop. And, after the last term finished, the Court denied cert over three dissents. But the case was still not over. ADF, Stutzman's counsel, filed a petition for rehearing. These motions are usually denied pro forma. But Stutzman's case was not yet over. It was relisted several times. I speculated that the Court might hold Arlene's Flowers pending 303 Creative.

Alas, the case has now come to a close. Stutzman, who is 77-years-old, has decided to retire. And she reached a settlement with Robert Ingersroll and Curt Freed, the couple that had long-ago requested flowers. Stutzman will pay the couple $5,000, and dismiss her pending motion for reconsideration.

Stutzman issued a statement:

But, as most of you know, that was not the end of it. What followed were lawsuits filed against me and a concerted effort to either force me to change my religious beliefs or pay a devastating price for believing them including being threatened with the loss of my home, my business, and my life savings. The confrontations have led me on a long and winding nine-year journey through the legal system, though it was a journey where Jesus Christ walked with me every step of the way.

Today, that journey ends, and I am at peace. I wish the culmination of all that I've been through could result in a new respect, culturally and legally, for freedom of conscience in our country. From the beginning, I have asked no more than the freedom to act in accordance with my religious beliefs and personal convictions. I have treated those who persecuted me with respect, and with the assurance that I want for them the same freedom that I ask for myself.

….

So, I've paid $5,000 to Rob and am passing my legal torch on to other artists—like Lorie Smith of 303 Creative in Colorado, whose case may well be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this term—and thanking God for the victories He's so graciously given me.

I've never had to compromise my conscience, or go against my faith.

The response in 303 Creative is due on December 8.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A heroine among America's vestigial bigots.

(Why was Jesus Christ too weak to deliver the victory for which she prayed?)

[You're not smart]

Rev

[Cheerio]

From her comment to Fox News: "Rob and Curt have every right to live the way they do and the way they feel with their beliefs, and I'm just asking for that same [right]."

Indeed the most tolerant, non-bigoted, open-minded thing that anyone could say on the matter. Live and let live.

[santamonica811]

Cheeio,
No!!! It's a terrible philosophy, in practice. (Except for pure libertarians.). Just apply it to, say, black people, instead of to gay people.

"I have nothing at all against black people, and I want nothing for them but good health and happiness. But I want the right to be left alone as well, and for me--and my religious beliefs--this means being able to refuse service to blacks (or Jews, or the disabled, or whatevs) at my business."

I other words, I DON'T CARE if your truly-held religious beliefs call for you to discriminate against ___ people in your business. You don't get to do that...that is the cost of opening up a business in America. (On the other hand, I will fight to the end to protect your right to discriminate against anyone, in terms of who you allow into your own home, into your church, etc..)

Sorry; zero sympathy for these woman. I'm just glad she prayed on it, and [God +] Jesus Christ thought fit to give compensation to the people she injured. Who am I to question the Holy Word?

[Krayt]

Is it? Isn't it presumptuous to tell people they are not permitted to follow their religion in all aspects of their life? Especially business, the process of ensuring food in their mouths?

"Religion is a quaint lifestyle choice. Performance art. You are not permitted to follow it in anything other than rain dances on Sundays."

Well if that isn't prime arrogancy.

[santamonica811]

Not the tiniest bit presumptuous. Imagine that my religion requires me to stab 7 people every 2nd Thursday. (But, never in a house of worship or against people going to/from a house of worship.)

I'm not allowed to follow this aspect of my religion, even though I have a deeply-felt and sincerely-held belief that I must do so, in order to follow my religious tenets. Why? Not because my religious practice interferes with your own religion (You actually get a benefit...your fellow citizens who are atheists are always at risk of being stabbed by me on those Thursdays). But because you can no longer live your life without my intruding in ways that society has decided I should not be permitted to do. Does this require line-drawing? Of course. But between the two extremes (ie, you can't do any religious act that interferes with anyone, in any way, vs, you can do absolutely anything, if your religion justifies it), there is this big gray area, where people of good faith argue about what things religious justifications give extra benefits for, and what things can be sanctioned, in spite of the religious component.

I think almost every single person agrees with this approach...although naturally people disagree about what I should be allowed to do/refuse to do, due to my religion, as compared to what your Get Out Of Jail card gives you, with your other, different, religion.

But to say, "Anything goes!!!" if it is part of a religion? Nope, you've lost me...and lost most people, I reckon.

[Michael P]

If your analogy to compelled speech is literally murdering people, you are not out on a limb, you are well past the end of the limb.

[Blake Paine]

Not the issue. She was completely free to practice her beliefs while running the business but part of that is not advertising something for sale to the public that because of her beliefs she won’t sell respecting their civil rights. She stopped advertising the sale of custom wedding floral services to the public and that solved the problem. If she had just promised to run respecting civil rights in the future none of this would have happened.

And for those saying she would lose business these orders were 1) less than 3% of her gross income, and 2) do you see the Kosher deli owner complaining about lost profits on the things their beliefs say they won’t sell to the public?

[David Nieporent]

This is a disingenuous argument, because it's neither an accurate statement of the law nor of the facts. She was not held liable for false advertising, and indeed the public accommodations laws in question have no connection to "advertising." A business must treat members of protected classes equally compared to non-members with respect to the provision of goods or services whether or not the business has advertised those goods or services to the public.

[Blake Paine]

Actually she was charged under the consumer protection act, and advertising something for sale that won’t be sold as required by law is false advertising. But yes, she was charged with violating the civil rights protections of public accommodation law, but it still false advertising even if that charge hadn't been raised raised. By stopping advertising the service she complied with one part of the AG’s initial request, she just refused to promise to obey civil rights laws in the future. She could have settled this at no expense other than postage.

Everyone has a right to a creed that includes the practice of weddings for couples regardless of their sexes and she advertised to the public - all creeds.

[Gandydancer]

“Everyone has a right to a creed that includes the practice of weddings for couples regardless of their sexes and she advertised to the public – all creeds.”

This is brain-dead. The “right to a creed” is unrelated to any supposed right to coerce others into selling services for celebrations of that creed. And, no, anyone has a right to make a livelihood selling to the public without giving up their right to choose whom they will sell to. The “advertising” bit is just a distraction — this woman would not have been exempted from punishment if all her advertising had said “No flowers for fag weddings”.

[Ed Grinberg]

Just apply it to, say, black people

Forcing a private business owner to serve people against his will is wrong, whether they be black, gay, Jewish, or whatever.

[Blake Paine]

No one forced the business to serve anyone. The state said that what they do offer for sale must be sold legally, but they aren’t required to sell any particular thing. The Washington Attorney General's office said that promising to do that specifically would end their interest in the case, Stutzman refused to promise.

If Costco can’t advertise cheap big screen TVs to the public and then tell those responding their must take an action like buy a membership to actually buy the item then a florist shop can’t publicly advertise and then tell the responding customers they must have wedding practices approved of by the business owner to actually buy the service.

Every member of the public has a constitutional right to have other than Southern Baptist beliefs, observances, and practices and a civil right to buy what was advertised regardless of those practices, including weddings for couples regardless of their sexes as mine does.

[CFred]

Her stance has nothing to do with them being gay.
Ingersoll & Freed were her customers for years, she knew they were gay and, by their own admission, treated them like any other customers.
The issue only arose when they asked her to do the flowers for their wedding. She wished them happiness, but refused the job due to her religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. She never refused them service, she simply refused to be part of an event which violated her religious beliefs.
The plaintiffs claim they were so traumatized by her (polite) refusal that they feared to even ask any other florist to provide flowers and had to change their entire wedding ceremony.

[Blake Paine]

Actually the customer tried to order with another employee initially but were referred to the owner. Any employee could have handled the order and one would have gladly.

Stutzman was in the state case solely as the owner, they AG made clear that any employee could handle the order and that Stutzman was free to do wedding florals for friends and family. The violation was advertising a service that could only be actually bought by customers having weddings that passed her personal religious litmus test.

Creed discrimination, pure and simple.

[Blake Paine]

Please note that was the original amount the ACLU proposed so many years ago which Stutzman refused. So do note who was generous and who refused to respect the civil rights of the public to who they choose to advertise.

Obviously the business can’t require the public to conform to the owner’s religious practices to buy what was freely publicly offer for sale.

(oh and laugh at the BS about her ‘artistry’, employee Eryn would have happily filled the order)

[Doug Heffernan]

The barronelle lady said in her statement that she recommended some other floral artists whom [she] knew would do a great job [making gay flowers] for Rob.

That seems like some sort of complicity or abetment in the making of gay flowers. When the barronelle lady is at the pearly gates, god is going to be none to happy about her willingness help people find gay flowers. That is almost as bad as making the gay flowers.

Under an S.B. 8 style scheme, the baronelle lady would be as liable as the uber driver.

[Michael P]

That is a dumb argument against tolerance, and also probably wrong about liability "under an S.B. 8 style scheme".

[mulched]

Found the slaver. You know what to do.

[not guilty]

Ms. Stutzman elected civil disobedience and has paid a consequence. That distinguishes her from her colleagues who want to be disobedient bur consequence free.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Yep, white Christians should never suffer any consequences for their behavior. Marriage is between one man with a pee pee and one woman with a wee wee!

[Sidney r finkel]

The lesson here has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Instead this saga is a damning indictment of our court system, where the delays and costs of getting a final decision are so great that justice is effectively denied in almost all disputes.

Those of us outside the legal system cannot change. Those inside the legal system can, but won't. Why? They get paid by the hour.

[subpatre]

Legislatures. It'd take a few moments to pass a law doubling the shifts worked. That's the way it works —and it does work— in industry, retail, and services. After that, maybe the courts system will suddenly find a way to dramatically increase 'throughput'.

[Fergus McGee]

The payment should have been in the reverse direction for being disgraceful nuisances.

[santamonica811]

And yet, it wasn't. She made a conscious decision to pay the amount requested by the plaintiffs, in order to have the case end.

The wrongdoer, paying the injured party in order to get rid of a lawsuit. That aspect of this mishegoss (spelling??), at least, is common and unsurprising.

[Martinned]

Given the legal fees, it pretty much was.

[Michael Masinter]

Leaving the merits aside, there is a lesson too many of us miss -- Life is hard, then you die.

[santamonica811]

My late grandmother would always say about life, "It's a story with only one ending." . . . which is sort of genius, and sort of funny, and sort of profound.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When you read a Supreme Court decision, it is often easy to forget that real-life people are involved. "

Only for lawyers, Josh. Only for lawyers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Religious claimants have become accustomed to a 'heads we win, tails you lose' standard -- they can discriminate against anyone else, but no one can discriminate against them. Republicans have been flattering this silliness for short-term political gain, but likely at severe long-term cost to the superstitious.

The backlash against this unfairness and unearned privilege, as organized religion continues to decline in modern America, will be predictable and perhaps severe.