Washington Florist Sued for Refusing Flowers at Same-Sex Wedding

On December 19, a judge was finally asked to consider a case filed by the Washington State Attorney General in April against a florist who refused to provide her services at a same-sex wedding.

Gay Star News reports that Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, refused to do the flowers for her longtime customer Robert Ingersoll when he told her he'd be marrying his partner, Curt Freed.

"He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, 'I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ," Stutzman told KEPRTV News.

Stutzman said "we hugged each other an he left, and I assumed that was the end of the story." But Ingersoll and his partner took the story online and within days, it went viral. People commented both in support of the couple and in support of Stutzman.

"It's a personal conviction... it's not a matter of being right or wrong. It's my belief," said Stutzman.

But the state disagrees. Sexual orientation is a protected class in the state of Washington, and the state's AG Bob Ferguson is making a big issue of the case. He gave her a chance to reconsider, but she stood her ground.

Queerty reports> that Stutzman cited her right to "artistic freedom," claiming that making floral arrangements was "a creative process that takes artistic talent," and that "all artists consider what they do to be an expression."

The Tri-City Herald further reports that Stutzman's attorneys said she declined her services because she thought Ingersoll was asking her to provide full support for the wedding, including greeting guests and supporting the wedding party.

During the hearing, Michael Scott, an attorney for the ACLU representing the same-sex couple argued, "Our tradition and our laws require businesses to serve the public without discriminating...." He added that "the core purpose of these laws is to preserve and protect the essential human dignity of all members of our diverse society."

"No case -- not a single case -- has been cited to this court in which a business has been excused from the reach of public accommodations law on the basis of an asserted religious belief or the right to free speech," he said. "No one has the right to unjustly discriminate in operating a place of public accommodation."

Stutzman's attorneys also brought their own motion for a summary judgment. Attorneys for the state and couple arguing against it.

During the three-hour hearing on Friday in Benton County Superior Court, Judge Alex Ekstrom made no decision. The trial is set for next year.

Below, check a video of support from the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom. Freedom to discriminate, we're guessing.