Connect with us

Attorney General Submits 64 Page Brief Supporting Court’s Decision Against Anti-Gay Florist

Published

on

The Washington State Attorney General has weighed in on Barronelle Stutzman’s case, and supports the court’s decision finding her guilty.

For the past few years there have been several cases of anti-gay discrimination that have captivated the nation and mobilized the religious right against the right of same-sex couples to marry. These simple cases involving clear-cut discrimination, animus and anti-gay beliefs of florists, photographers, and bakers refusing to provide their goods and services to gay people getting married have all been decided in favor of the same-sex couples, as was the case against Washington state florist Barronelle Stutzman.

As the owner of arlene’s flowers, Stutzman refused to provide flowers for the wedding of a long time customer, citing her deeply held religious beliefs. 

The State tried to settle with Stutzman for $2000 but she refused, and with her activist Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, went to trial. A Washington judge found Stutzman violated the Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and fined her $1000, $1 in legal costs, and enjoined her from further acts of discrimination.

Stutzman and her Alliance Defending Freedom attorney since the case began in 2013 have egregiously been putting on a show, traveling the country, and claiming the state is trying to bankrupt her.

And she’s gotten an all-too-happy-to-comply media to go along with her pity party.

“Barronelle Stutzman is now going to lose her business, her life savings, and possibly her own home for putting her faith into practice,” Fox News’ Erick Erickson claimed, incorrectly.

Stutzman “stands to lose her business, her home, and her personal savings,” a CNN op-ed wrongly claimed.

And The Heritage Foundation ran this apparently fictive piece:

In a phone interview with The Daily Signal, Barronelle Stutzman said the decision—and its accompanying fines—will put her flower shop out of business, or worse.

After the fines and legal fees, “There won’t be anything left,” Stutzman said.

“They want my home, they want my business, they want my personal finances as an example for other people to be quiet.”

No, the State of Washington and the couple she discriminated against just want her to stop discriminating, as the decision against her read.

Of course, the falsehoods Stutzman, her attorney, and a complicit media have claimed managed to get her $92,000 in donations via a GoFundMe page.

And now, thanks to her anti-gay attorney using Stutzman to further her own cause, the Arlene’s Flowers owner is appealing the decision to the Washington Supreme Court.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson late Wednesday filed a 64-page brief that “outlines in exhaustive legal detail why the state’s top justices should uphold a Benton County Superior Court decision related to Arlene’s Flowers,” the Tri-City Herald reports.

Ferguson, in his brief, calls the case “discrimination based on sexual orientation, pure and simple.”

“Free speech and free exercise rights do not prohibit states from outlawing discriminatory conduct in business. If they did, discrimination of all kinds would flourish, and our country never would have made the enormous progress that we have,” Ferguson writes.

“Just as it would be race discrimination for a florist to refuse to serve an interracial couple for their wedding, even if she would serve them at other times, it is sexual orientation discrimination for her to refuse to serve a same-sex couple for their wedding, even if she served them at other times.”

Ferguson also offers these salient points in his brief:

Defendants … argue that arranging flowers involves expression and that they therefore have a free speech right to refuse to provide wedding flowers to same-sex couples. But many types of conduct involve expression, and that does not exempt them from the law. Great cooking may be an art form, but that does not mean that a chef can evade health inspections or refuse to serve an interracial couple. Accepting Defendants’ argument would mean exempting from government regulation any conduct that involves expression. That is not and cannot be the law.

Defendants also wrongly contend that their illegal discrimination must be excused because it is motivated by religion. That is incorrect. “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” United States v. Lee 

The state Supreme Court will decide early next year if it will hear the case or send it to a lower court.

 

EARLIER:

Image of Barronelle Stutzman screenshot via YouTube
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

BREAKING NEWS

Watch: Bill Barr Has Talked to Jan. 6 Committee Says Chairman

Published

on

Bill Barr, the former Attorney General who served as then-President Donald Trump’s top protector, has spoken with the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS), asked by CBS News about a bombshell draft executive order directing the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines after Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, said: “We’ve had conversations with the former attorney general already. We have talked to Department of Defense individuals.”

“We are concerned that our military was part of this big lie on promoting that the election was false,” Thompson said Sunday morning on “Face the Nation.”

“So, if you are using the military to potentially seize voting machines, even though it’s a discussion, the public needs to know. We’ve never had that before.”

The draft memo was never formalized or enacted, and it is unknown who wrote it, but it was part of a massive, hard-fought document collection given to the Jan. 6 Committee by the National Archives after the Supreme Court refused to block its release. Trump tried for months to keep his official White House records from being released.

Watch:

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Instructed Michael Cohen to Make Sure Don Jr. Went to Jail Instead of Ivanka

Published

on

According to a report from Business Insider, Michael Cohen admitted on Saturday that Donald Trump instructed him in 2012 to make sure that Don Trump Jr. be the one to take the fall instead of Ivanka Trump during an investigation by Manhattan’s district attorney into lying about property sales.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Alex Witt, Cohen recalled that the former president was concerned about Ivanka’s well-being if she was sentenced to jail and that Don Jr. would handle it better.

According to the report, Cohen told the MSNBC host, “You may recall that there was the district attorney’s case here for Trump Soho where it was either Don or Ivanka was in very big trouble as a result of lying about the number of units that had been sold.”

RELATED: ’She took that West Wing office!’: Ivanka Trump blasted for trying to ‘blow off’ Jan. 6 probe

“And Donald said it to me – I mean I wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t said directly to me – he goes ‘if one or the other has to go to prison, make sure that it’s Don because Don would be able to handle it, ” he continued.

Cohen later said that he doesn’t expect Ivanka to willingly appear before the House committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection and claimed the first daughter would likely plead the 5th before explaining, “Ivanka is only interested in Ivanka.”

You can read more here.

Image by Walt Disney Television/ABC/Ida Mae Astute via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

CRIME

Trumps Could ‘Turn on One Another’ as Investigations ‘Go Up the Food Chain’: MSNBC Analyst

Published

on

Former president Donald Trump and his family are facing “existential” threats from ongoing criminal investigations in New York and Georgia, according to MSNBC political analyst and Trump biographer Tim O’Brien.

“I think you’re going to start to see this vice squeeze in,” O’Brien said Saturday. “The Trumps will happily throw underlings under the bus as this gets hotter. I think the question is whether or not the family members will turn on one another as it goes up the food chain.”

“The Manhattan DA’s case has existential consequences to it,” O’Brien added. “Donald Trump and perhaps his children could end up in orange jumpsuits if that case goes the full route. That’s not going to be the case with (New York AG) Letitia James’ prosecution, that’s a civil case. I also think the Georgia case has an existential threat. Donald Trump acting like a 19th-century ward heeler, called up the secretary of state and said find me some votes, and there’s proof of that, there’s evidence.”

Watch the full interview below.

 

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.