Lawyers for Barronelle Stutzman, the proprietor of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., have asked the Supreme Court to reverse a Washington State Supreme Court decision from February. They ruled that Stutzman violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination when she turned away Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll because they are in a same-sex relationship.
Stutzman and her lawyers argue that she refused the couple service because of her Southern Baptist beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, reports the Tri-City Herald.
They also contend that arranging flowers is a form of artistic expression that should be protected under the First Amendment.
Similarly to baker Jim Phillips in the Colorado Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Stutzman hopes the high court will find that business owners, particularly those in wedding-related businesses, should be allowed to refuse to participate in or take actions seen as condoning behavior or relationships to which they have moral or religious objections.
In both Stutzman’s case and the Colorado case, courts found that Washington State and Colorado’s nondiscrimination laws did not violate the defendants’ First Amendment rights. The courts found that the state had a vested interest in ensuring that minorities, including members of the LGBTQ community, were not discriminated against.
“This case has never been about flowers for us,” Ingersoll said in a statement. “It’s about making sure that other people don’t have to go through what we went through. We hope that the Supreme Court sees what the lower courts in this case have already recognized: that business shouldn’t be able to turn someone away simply because of who they are or who they love.”
But Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Stutzman, issued a statement claiming that if the high court rules against their client, then the government will be able to “punish” others who express religious beliefs opposing homosexuality.
“Our nation has a long history of protecting the right to dissent, but simply because Barronelle disagrees with the state about marriage, the government and ACLU have put at risk everything she owns,” ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. “This includes not only her business, but also her family’s savings, retirement funds, and home. Not only does her case and Jack Phillips’ case involve similar issues, but both Barronelle and Jack face burdensome penalties for simply exercising their right of free expression.”
Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds has signed a "religious freedom" bill that critics say will legitimize instances of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
The "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" passed on a party-line vote in Iowa's GOP-led Legislature, with all Republican lawmakers voting in favor of it.
Reynolds signed the measure at a private event hosted by The Family Leader, a conservative Christian organization opposed to LGBTQ rights. She also sought to justify her actions by claiming those with conservative religious beliefs are a persecuted group.
"Thirty years ago, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed almost unanimously at the federal level," she said in a statement. "Since then, religious rights have increasingly come under attack. Today, Iowa enacts a law to protect these unalienable rights -- just as 26 other states have done -- upholding the ideals that are the very foundation of our country.
Thailand is one step closer to legalizing marriage equality after lawmakers in the country's lower house of parliament voted to approve a bill permitting same-sex couples to wed.
The bill overwhelmingly passed by a vote of 400-10 in its final reading on March 27.
It now heads to the country's Senate, where it must be approved, before finally having Thailand's king sign off on the policy change. The law could be enacted as soon as 120 days after the king's assent, reports Al Jazeera.
If the bill surmounts those obstacles, Thailand would become the third Asian country to legalize same-sex nuptials, following Taiwan and Nepal.
On April 19, the Biden administration issued new rules outlining schools' obligations under Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination -- including explicit protections for LGBTQ students.
The new rules, which take effect August 1, expand Title IX's protections against sex-based discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding by prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity in federally-funded educational programs.
That explicit expansion of the law seeks to align Title IX guidance with the principles undergirding a landmark 2020 Supreme Court decision finding that the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ workers from workplace discrimination, and that instances of anti-LGBTQ discrimination are inherently a form of sex-based discrimination.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!