• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Penalizing Religious Belief: No Bed of Roses

    Lannis Waters/ZUMA Press/Newscom

    Lannis Waters/ZUMA Press/Newscom

    A Washington state florist is facing a lawsuit by the state’s attorney general because she desires to conduct her business in accord with the principles of her faith.

    Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, is being sued by the state of Washington for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

    She reportedly declined to arrange flowers for the wedding on the grounds that her “relationship with Jesus Christ” forbids her or her business from providing flowers for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

    A news source explains that Stutzman has many gay customers to whom she sells flowers. But the issue of marriage is an altogether different consideration for Stutzman.

    J. D. Bristol, Stutzman’s attorney, noted, “This is about gay marriage, it’s not about a person being gay. She has a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage, not homosexuality. It violates her conscience.”

    The state is reportedly seeking fines against Stutzman of $2,000 along with a court injunction forcing her to comply with a state consumer protection law, which makes it unlawful to discriminate against customers based on their sexual orientation.

    Washington’s anti-discrimination law, coupled with the state’s recent passage of a law recognizing same-sex marriage, is putting religious liberty to the test.

    As Heritage has repeatedly warned, the interaction of same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws is resulting in evitable clashes with religious liberty, turning “culture wars” into “conscience wars.”

    The case against Stutzman follows the case against a New Mexico photographer who was hauled before a state human rights commission and forced to pay more than $6,600 for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

    In both of these instances, government is using anti-discrimination laws to force people to choose between obeying their faith and obeying government policy.

    Our first freedom of religious liberty shouldn’t take a backseat to anti-discrimination policy.

    Bristol remarked that “this is a freedom-of-expression and free-exercise-of-religion issue.… What the government is saying here is that you don’t have the right to free religious exercise.”

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.