The United States Supreme Court recently stated that it will not hear a case involving a Christian florist that raises the question of whether Washington state law can require the woman to provide flower arrangements for same-sex weddings. This article examines the potential repercussions this case might have on LGBTQ rights. This case comes after another case that was recently heard by the Supreme Court, during which they sided with a Catholic adoption agency that refused to place children in homes with same-sex parents. This case is also notable because it presents many of the similar issues that were raised in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
How the Case Arose
In 2013, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers declined to provide flowers for the wedding ceremony of a same-sex couple because the owner’s Southern Baptist religion does not acknowledge same-sex marriages. Unlike the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the flower shop owner is known to provide flowers to LGBTQ+ individuals in some situations, but not for their weddings.
The owner’s refusal resulted in the state’s attorney general obtaining a court order that prohibited the owner from discriminating against any future same-sex couples. The Washington Supreme Court ultimately upheld the order, which prompted the flower shop owner to request the intervention of the United States Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court ultimately granted the shop owner’s request and ordered the Washington court to issue a new ruling that took the Masterpiece Cakeshop case into consideration. The Washington Supreme Court, however, again upheld the order that required the flower shop owner to provide her services to same-sex couples.
Response to the Case
The ACLU lawyer who represents the same-sex couple who were denied flowers is also the attorney who represented the couple who initiated the Masterpiece Cakeshop. This lawyer has commented that the idea of a First Amendment right to discriminate has been routinely rejected.
The President of the Human Rights Campaign has praised the Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari in the case. The President has commented that the Supreme Court has again commented that critical nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBTQ+ individuals are legally enforceable and have established a strong precedent. The President, however, also commented that these protections should exist for all LGBTQ+ individuals in all communities. Critics of this case have commented that the Supreme Court is acting in a manner that attacks and weakens religious freedom in the United States. These individuals argue that a business owner should be allowed to exercise faith in a way that excludes people who do not conform with that individual’s religious views.
The Goal of the Universal Life Church’s Blog
Each week, the Universal Life Church’s blog focuses on documenting the most noteworthy cases involving LGBTQ rights.