This past week I came upon yet
another story of a private
business being attacked by the “gay mafia.” And this time it was kind of
personal.
(This case was also mentioned last
year
here.)
The business being attacked this time is Arlene’s Flowers,
in Richland, Washington. The name and photo of the shop look familiar to me. We
spent most of a decade living in that corner of Washington. Daughter Social
Sphere was born in the hospital in Richland. We didn’t have a lot of events
that called for flowers back then, but chances are if Mr. Spherical Model
brought me flowers when our daughter was born, they came from Arlene’s Flowers.
Owner of Arlene’s is 70-year-old Barronelle Stutzman, who
has been making a living as a florist for 40 years. She has served everyone,
regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. But she’s a Christian, and
in 2013 when a longtime customer asked her to do the flowers for his same-sex
wedding, she declined. It was the event, not the client, that she declined,
because, to her, marriage is sacred and something that can’t be mutated to mean
same-sex.
Stutzman must have been rude enough to really anger the
client, right? No. “I put my hand on his and said, ‘I’m sorry Rob, I can’t do
your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ…. We talked a little
bit, we talked about his mom [walking him down the aisle]…we hugged and he
left.”
But the result of her friendly, gentle refusal was to suffer
a discrimination lawsuit. More than one. First, the Washington State attorney
general filed suit, requiring a $2,000 fine in addition to an order that the
service be rendered. Then the couple filed another suit through the ACLU. Last
week a Washington State judge ruled against Stutzman. The result is worse than
just putting her out of business.
She said, “They want my home, they want my business, they
want my personal finances as an example for other people to be quiet.”
An ACLU lawyer said, “Religious freedom is a fundamental
part of America. But religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore
the law or to harm others because of who they are. When gay people go to a
business, they should be treated like anyone else and not be discriminated
against.”
So, religious freedom is OK and tolerated—unless it isn’t.
Because…law.
So, a moment of
history about marriage law in Washington. In
1997, following a threat to the definition after Hawaii had challenges to
marriage there, the legislature wrote legislation defending the long-standing
definition requiring one man and one woman. It passed
63 to 35 in the House and 27 to 19 in the
Senate, but Governor Gary Locke vetoed it. He said it was divisive and
unnecessary, since the law was already clear on the definition. And he added, "Our
overarching principle should be to promote civility, mutual respect and unity.
This legislation fails to meet this test." Please remember that. Veto
override vote failed 26-20, when seven Democrats who had voted in favor of the law changed
their votes to support the governor.
In 1998 the legislature attempted similar legislation, a
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The governor vetoed this one as well, saying, "Our
laws right now prohibit same-gender marriages, and I oppose this legislation
because it is trying to make illegal something that is already illegal."
The veto was quickly and soundly overridden. Yes, the definition of marriage was settled, but the people wanted it protected.
Over the following decade same-sex “marriage” advocates
could not get traction, because public opinion in the state continued to support the
existing definition of marriage. So they pushed instead for domestic
partnership status, through initiative in 2007, withdrawn for lack of
signatures to get it on the November ballot. But in the meantime they did
establish domestic partnerships through the legislature in April 2007.
Then in 2012 the legislature voted to enact same-sex
“marriage” on close votes. After a delay to let the people decide by referendum,
the voters approved the law 54%-46% (I believe that’s the first state to choose
same-sex “marriage,” rather than have courts or legislators force it on them
against their will). It went into effect in December 2012.
Three months later Robert Ingersoll walked into Arlene’s
Flowers and ruined Barronelle Stutzman’s life. It was a no win for her.
I think a businessperson should be allowed to refuse service
to anyone for any reason. But that’s an argument for another day.
She didn’t refuse service to anyone; she refused to perform
a particular service for a particular event. She did no damage to the customer;
he could go elsewhere. He knew she hadn’t ever discriminated against him
because of his sexual orientation. But, instead of going and finding a willing
florist, he decided she should have her business taken, her livelihood and
savings siphoned off in fines and court costs, and threaten everything she had,
which at her age she could never recover from. Because she said she wouldn’t do
a particular kind of event—that had been against the law for the entire history
of the state until three months earlier and was only made law by a close
margin.
Somehow that takes precedent over anyone’s personal
religious beliefs, even though religious protection is guaranteed in the First
Amendment because it is God-given and inalienable.
Alliance Defending Freedom has stepped in, to help her
appeal. But even an eventual win will leave her years older, herd business
closed, her savings gone.
What Stutzman did was tolerant. What Ingersoll did was
beyond intolerant; it smacks of mafia.
Eventually, if the Supreme Court reads the Constitution and
grows a spine, we can hope cases like this will be reversed. That will be good
news for all people who engage in commerce while living religious lives. But
the businesses already attacked will probably never recover.
Because of the threat of these anti-discrimination lawsuits,
a religious person doing business today risks losing everything as soon as a
protected-class customer walks through their door.
There’s no safety for religious businesspeople, but there
are some rather painful alternatives:
1.
Incorporate, rather than have a sole
proprietorship, to limit the assets that can be accessed in a lawsuit. The
business, then, is sued for discrimination. You’ll need to have the business go
bankrupt right away, but at least your personal assets can’t be seized.
2.
Limit your business in a way that will prevent
the dilemma. This would look something like “we never do wedding arrangements,”
which is pretty limiting but avoids the attack. This would be true for cake
decorators and photographers as well. But, it might be hard to keep the
business going if you have to turn away work for the 99.99% of customers who
might your skills for a regular wedding.
3.
Take the job, and then purposely do a very poor
job. Your reputation may be at risk. You may have to return any money you were
paid. You may even be out the cost of resources and time. But you can’t be sued
for refusing service to a protected-class person, and you haven’t used your
skills and abilities in honor of something that offends your religious heart.
The thing that has bothered me so much about these cases is
the expectation that a person
must do
work that some judge says they must. If you must do work that you haven’t
contracted to do, that is coercion.
Another word for it is slavery. But there’s a difference
between this and the slavery we saw in the South prior to the Emancipation
Proclamation. Back then, the slaves could be forced to work. But they could not
be forced to create beauty. Mostly slaves wouldn’t be trained to do artistic
work. They could be asked to work in a garden, but they wouldn’t be expected to
design the garden. They might be an excellent cook, but they wouldn’t be
expected to be a haute cuisine chef.
But today’s “gay mafia,” along with the judges that are
their tools, are trying to enslave people who should have the expectation of
freedom (they are their own bosses in their own artistic businesses) to do
things that not even “legally owned” slaves could have been forced to do.
When you’re taking the life, livelihood, home and savings of
a 70-year-old woman who has always served you sweetly and cheerfully, you
really need to re-think who is the intolerant one.
I’ve written enough for a day. I thought I’d have a portion
to devote to the singe same-sex “marriage” that happened in
Texas last Thursday.
So, just to re-cap, the federal judge
who required it had no power of mandamus; he had no authority to require a
state judge to do what he asked. The state judge who allowed the license to be
granted did so unlawfully. The Jewish rabbi who “married” the two lesbian women
was not abiding by any Jewish religion that I’ve ever encountered (but I’m sure
I’m not familiar with ever version of Jewish belief). The case is not in any
way precedent setting, and the state attorney general has already made clear to
all the state’s judges that such licenses cannot be granted in Texas at this
time, while cases are pending in the 5
th Circuit and there is a stay.
The attorney general has the right to challenge the legality of the “marriage,”
since the granting of the license did not abide by Texas law. So, except that
two people started calling themselves “married,” nothing has changed in Texas.
I’ve written recently on the same-sex “marriage” issue
here
and
here.
I wrote about religious freedom
here.
The two topics are closely tied.
