海角大神

Barronelle Stutzman loved doing custom floral work for Robert Ingersoll. He became one of her best customers, often encouraging her creativity. 鈥淒o your thing,鈥� he would tell her when placing an order. And he loved what she did.

Over the years, Mr. Ingersoll spent nearly $4,500 on flowers and arrangements by the florist in Richland, Wash. But one day, he made a request that was different from his earlier orders. He asked Ms. Stutzman if she would design the flowers for his coming wedding ceremony. The request thrust her into a moral dilemma. Through a thriving nine-year business relationship, the fact that Ingersoll is gay had never been relevant.

But it was now.

As a devout Southern Baptist, Stutzman says her involvement in a same-sex wedding would violate her religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage as a divinely blessed union exclusively between one man and one woman.

She did not object to selling flowers or floral arrangements from her shop to Ingersoll, as she鈥檇 done many times before. What she objected to was the possibility of a job requiring her personal involvement in the celebration of a same-sex marriage. She felt that would be a renunciation of her faith. So when Ingersoll arrived in her shop, excited to share his happy news, Stutzman was torn.

鈥淩ob was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ,鈥� she would later write in a Seattle Times essay. 鈥淎s deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me.鈥�

That five-minute conversation with Ingersoll, she added, was 鈥渙ne of the hardest things I鈥檝e ever done in my life.鈥�

Now, three years after the brief meeting in her flower shop, the 71-year-old florist is facing the prospect of financial ruin. Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington have filed discrimination lawsuits. In addition to targeting her business, Arlene鈥檚 Flowers Inc., they sued Stutzman personally, ensuring that any assets she might own beyond the flower shop could be taken from her to pay their legal fees if she lost.

鈥淭he point was to ruin her,鈥� Stutzman鈥檚 lawyer, Kristen Waggoner of the conservative law group Alliance Defending Freedom, says. 鈥淚t was to send a message to the [people of] the state and the nation that if you dare to say 鈥業 refuse to violate my religious faith,鈥� they will literally put everything you own at risk.鈥澨�

Stutzman is not alone in being forced by the government to choose between remaining faithful to traditional religious views on marriage or facing punishment for violating state anti-
discrimination laws. Her flower shop is among a small number of wedding-related businesses nationwide run by religious conservatives who feel their faith prohibits any connection to the celebration of a same-sex wedding.

They include a wedding photographer in New Mexico, wedding cake designers in Colorado and Oregon, and the owners of a New York farm who rent out their scenic property as a wedding venue.

In each case, the business owner cited religious beliefs about marriage as justification for declining to provide services for same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies. In each case, they were found guilty of violating state anti-discrimination laws for refusing to offer same-sex couples the same services they offer to heterosexual couples. In each case, the courts rejected legal arguments that the business owner should be exempt on grounds of religious beliefs from state laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.听

The Stutzman case is being closely watched across the country because it may establish a framework for how to resolve clashes between advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and religious conservatives in the future.

* * *

Like those other cases, the lawsuits against Stutzman went to state court. She lost. The trial judge gave her a choice: Either agree to decorate same-sex weddings or stop doing weddings altogether.

She has agreed to refuse all weddings while her case is pending. Her appeal is now before the Washington state Supreme Court, with oral arguments expected this fall.

Ingersoll and his spouse, Curt Freed, declined an interview request for this story. Instead, their lawyers at the ACLU asked that the Monitor submit questions. Their responses were provided in writing. Many of the facts in the case are beyond dispute, but there is a substantial difference in how each side views the confrontation. From the perspective of Ingersoll and Mr. Freed, the incident is a matter of discrimination rather than a challenge to religious freedom.

Shortly after Washington State extended marriage to include same-sex couples in December 2012, Freed popped the question to his longtime partner. They were thrilled at the prospect of marriage. And they began to plan what they hoped would be an elegant and memorable 100-guest wedding to celebrate their love and commitment.

As part of the preparations, Ingersoll went to his favorite florist to ask her personally if she would handle the flowers. At that brief meeting, Stutzman reached across the counter and took hold of Ingersoll鈥檚 hand. He would later recall to Freed the words she used: 鈥淵ou know I love you dearly. I think you are a wonderful person, but my religion doesn鈥檛 allow me to do this.鈥�

In response to Ingersoll鈥檚 request for a referral, she suggested three local florists from among a dozen flower shops in the area. They talked a bit more, then hugged, and Ingersoll left the shop.

Ingersoll wrote to the Monitor that he was 鈥渙verwhelmed by the rejection from someone I had done business with for years.鈥�

He added: 鈥淲hile trying to remain composed, I was of course flooded with emotions and disbelief of what just happened.鈥�

He said he was aware that some religious conservatives were opposed to same-sex marriage, but he did not know that Stutzman was one of them. Freed says her refusal has had a lasting impact.

鈥淲e had not made other arrangements for our wedding, and this was really the first contact with a vendor we made,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e immediately became concerned that we were going to experience the same treatment from other vendors as well. The experience left us feeling isolated, singled out, and discriminated against.鈥�

Soon after, Freed posted a comment on his Facebook page recounting the florist鈥檚 refusal. It went viral. According to a sworn deposition filed in the case, the Facebook post generated 鈥渙verwhelming鈥� support for the couple from across the United States. It also attracted the attention of the media, the state attorney general, and the ACLU.

At first, both Freed and Ingersoll thought Stutzman had a right to refuse their business based on her religious beliefs. Ingersoll even confided to a friend shortly after the exchange that he did not plan to file a lawsuit. 鈥淣ot my thing,鈥� he said in an email.

That view changed after conversations with friends and a personal phone call from Attorney General Ferguson. The ACLU also agreed to represent the couple in a private lawsuit against Stutzman and her company.

Although the matter was considered a high priority, Freed and Ingersoll were told (in mid-March 2013) there would be no action taken in their case for several weeks out of concern that media coverage of the dispute might set back other efforts to advance gay rights.

Those other efforts were taking place at the US Supreme Court. On March 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which barred same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits. On March 27, the high court took up a challenge to Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriage in that state.听

On March 28, the first formal notice was sent to Stutzman from the state attorney general鈥檚 office, informing her that she had violated the state鈥檚 anti-discrimination law. The letter urged her to sign an agreement pledging that she would not discriminate in the future. It warned that she might be liable for as much as $2,000 in fines per violation as well as attorney fees and costs. The message was clear: Settle now or the state will come after you.

The settlement included a disclaimer that nothing in the agreement would bar anyone else from suing her. What Stutzman didn鈥檛 know at that point was that the ACLU was also working on the case on behalf of Ingersoll and Freed. So even if she agreed to settle with the state, there was no guarantee that the ACLU wouldn鈥檛 pursue its own litigation.

Stutzman refused to sign the agreement. Within weeks, complaints were filed by both the attorney general鈥檚 office and the ACLU. In addition to naming Arlene鈥檚 Flowers, both suits also named Stutzman personally. This is litigation hardball. It is usually done in an effort to persuade a defendant to settle a lawsuit to avoid huge fees in the future.

Again, Stutzman refused to settle.

In their lawsuit, Freed and Ingersoll are not seeking damages for any emotional harm they suffered. They are simply asking to be reimbursed the $7.91 they spent driving to a new florist for their wedding flowers. In addition, the attorney general has said he will not seek reimbursement of his office鈥檚 fees and expenses from Stutzman. But the potential bill for legal fees and costs from the ACLU is another matter. Stutzman鈥檚 lawyer, Ms. Waggoner, says it could be well over $1 million.

Stutzman, a grandmother of 22 and great-grandmother of three, is at an age when most Americans are already retired and living on a fixed income. She and her attorney say she is not in a position to pay a large bill for ACLU fees and costs.

鈥淚 am guessing the amount of fees is going to be substantial, but I don鈥檛 have a specific number for you,鈥� says Emily Chiang, legal director at ACLU of Washington. 鈥淟itigation is a messy, expensive thing, which is why we typically urge people to settle cases.鈥澨�

The ACLU decision to sue Stutzman in her personal capacity could force her into bankruptcy, according to Stutzman鈥檚 lawyer. Ms. Chiang says the only intended message is: 鈥淵ou need to serve everyone equally.鈥� She played down the threatening nature of the lawsuit. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not like we mailed her a horse鈥檚 head,鈥� the lawyer says.

鈥淲e have no interest in Ms. Stutzman鈥檚 assets,鈥� she adds. 鈥淟ook, the ACLU doesn鈥檛 litigate to make money. And we don鈥檛 litigate cases to drive people into bankruptcy. That is never our goal.鈥�

Ingersoll and Freed say that any negative consequences for Stutzman from the litigation would be her own fault. 鈥淏arronelle ... was presented with a legal letter asking her to comply with the law. She chose not to, and chose to fight a battle in trial court, and now through appeals. Those decisions are hers and hers alone.鈥�

At issue in the case are two conflicting legal provisions in state law. In 2006, lawmakers in the state capital, Olympia, passed a statute that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. But the state constitution also includes a provision guaranteeing 鈥渁bsolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship.鈥�

That provision appears to be significantly broader and more protective than the US Constitution鈥檚 First Amendment and its promise of free exercise of religion. The question is what happens when the anti-discrimination law comes into direct conflict with a provision of the state鈥檚 constitution.

In ruling against Stutzman in 2015, the state judge drew a distinction between a citizen鈥檚 freedom to believe, which he said was absolute, and a citizen鈥檚 freedom to act in public on those beliefs, which he said can be regulated by the government. In effect, the judge said that belief is personal, but if individuals seek to express those beliefs in action, the anti-discrimination law would trump any claim for a religious exemption.

鈥淭he judge told me I could have my faith but I couldn鈥檛 practice it 鈥� keep it in the four walls of the church,鈥� Stutzman says. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 like me telling Rob and Curt, 鈥榶ou can be gay, but once you leave your house you can no longer be gay.鈥� 鈥�

She adds: 鈥淐hrist is part of my life. If Rob and Curt鈥檚 homosexuality is a part of their life, they can鈥檛 drop that off. Neither can I drop off my faith in Christ.鈥�

Denny Burk, a professor of biblical studies at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., notes how easy it would have been for Stutzman to have just told a little white lie to Ingersoll 鈥� that she鈥檇 be out of town or unavailable.

But that, too, would have been a violation of her faith. 鈥淟ying is a sin,鈥� says Dr. Burk, who testified as a religion expert in the Stutzman case.

鈥淵ou have to figure a way to have integrity and seeking peace with all men, but in a way that doesn鈥檛 involve a lie,鈥� he adds.

Stutzman, he says, was trapped. There was no way for her to extricate herself from Ingersoll鈥檚 request without being honest about her religious convictions. Now she is being punished for it, he says.

鈥淚t is not safe to speak openly about these things, at least a lot of 海角大神s feel that way,鈥� he says.

To many conservative 海角大神s, that makes America a country they no longer recognize. 鈥淲e are in a time of fear and uncertainty. Our culture feels unstable,鈥� says David Parker, pastor of the Central United Protestant Church in Richland, Wash., not far from Arlene鈥檚 Flowers.

Mr. Parker does not know Stutzman personally, but he has followed her case and lives in the community where the dispute has generated extensive debate. The Stutzman case, he says, is part of a larger trend involving erosion and denigration of constitutional protections of religious exercise and freedom of conscience. Parker attributes this, in part, to what he sees as a significant shift in political philosophy among liberals.

鈥淎 truly progressive liberal is going to welcome a plethora of pluralistic values, convictions, ideas, and perspectives鈥� in society, he says. 鈥淏ut a person who is ideologically progressive and liberal is actually more focused on bending society in a very strict adherence to their worldview, which is highly antagonistic to orthodox Judeo-海角大神 tradition and history.鈥�

鈥淭hey see [religious conservatives], quite frankly, as the problem [behind the] culture鈥檚 ills and not a solution or foundation from which to build upon,鈥� the pastor says.

Chiang says religion has nothing to do with the lawsuit against Arlene鈥檚 Flowers and Stutzman. 鈥淭he ACLU is not an organization that is hostile to religion or to faith,鈥� she says. 鈥淵ou have your freedom of conscience 鈥� that is your personal, private relationship with your faith 鈥� but when you decide to open a place of business, other rules apply.

鈥淭hose rules require that you serve everyone who comes through your door, assuming they have the money to pay for it.鈥澨�

Chiang says it is irrelevant that Stutzman sold flowers for nine years to Ingersoll knowing he was gay. It is also not relevant that the Southern Baptist Church prohibits her personal involvement in a same-sex wedding, she says. The only relevant conduct, Chiang says, is that Stutzman refused to provide floral services to Ingersoll because he was marrying a man instead of a woman. That, she says, is a form of invidious discrimination.

Douglas NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, agrees that Stutzman鈥檚 prior work with Ingersoll does not absolve her from her subsequent refusal to handle the flowers at his wedding. 鈥淲hen someone discriminates against a same-sex couple, they are engaging in sexual-orientation discrimination,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t is not a response to say, 鈥業鈥檓 willing to serve the gay person but not willing to serve the gay couple.鈥� 鈥�

Since being sued, Stutzman鈥檚 reputation has been under nearly constant attack. Critics denounce her as a bigot. In contrast, those who know her say she is kind, friendly, and deeply religious.

鈥淚鈥檝e never seen a bigot who loves the people she is supposedly bigoted against and cherishes them and their friendship,鈥� says Burk, the seminary professor.

鈥淚f Barronelle Stutzman is a bigot then that means that every wing of historic 海角大神ity 鈥� Catholic, Protestant, as well as Orthodox Judaism, and Islam 鈥� is bigoted,鈥� says Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. 鈥淚t means that virtually every civilization in the history of humanity until the Supreme Court ruled last summer has been bigoted in terms of its understanding of marriage and sexuality.鈥�

Advocates for the LGBT community argue that traditional concepts of marriage must yield to marriage equality in Washington State, where the Legislature voted to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Chiang says there is no need for courts to weigh Stutzman鈥檚 claim of religious conscience against her client鈥檚 rights.

鈥淚t is unworkable to say we can weigh things,鈥� she says. 鈥淗aving only partial public accommodations is like [being] half pregnant. You either are or you aren鈥檛. Either [the business] is open to everyone or it is not.鈥�

If the courts created the kind of religious exemption Stutzman is requesting, it would 鈥渂low a hole through the side of the law,鈥� she says. Having only partial public accommodations would put the law on a slippery slope that could empower a grocery store clerk to refuse to sell milk to someone because of religious objections, Chiang says. 鈥淚t sounds crazy but I think that鈥檚 where the logic takes you.鈥�

To her, any religious exemption is unacceptable. 鈥淭hink about the enormity of what happened, that in this day and age you could walk into a store and someone could turn you away and say, 鈥業鈥檓 not serving the likes of you.鈥� 鈥�

Parker, the Richland pastor, asks the same question about society, but with a different implied result. 鈥淲e are moving into a society that is going to be much more [confrontational toward religious conservatives] rather than less,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t seems to me for the good of all people we need to meet each other in places of respectful deference. We have to figure out how we are going to live as neighbors in this world.鈥�

Despite her previous court loss and the threat of financial ruin, Stutzman says she does not regret standing up in defense of her religious beliefs. She says she feels God has prepared her for the ordeal.

Twenty years ago, she endured a rough patch. Her father died and she was diagnosed with cancer. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 when my relationship with Christ changed,鈥� she says. 鈥淲as I going to be a follower [of Christ鈥檚 example], or was I going to whine and complain?鈥�

Surviving cancer made her stronger, she says, and helped her see more clearly what is important 鈥� and not important. 鈥淚 think it prepared me for a time such as this,鈥� she says, her voice breaking with emotion. 鈥淕od is faithful in His promises.鈥�

What will happen if you lose in court, she is asked.

She gets very quiet. 鈥淭hen I guess we lose everything, and we pay the attorney fees, and we go on.鈥�

Just like that? 鈥淛ust like that,鈥� she says. 鈥淕od closes one door, He鈥檒l open another.鈥�

In a less litigious time, the dispute between Stutzman and Ingersoll might have been resolved with a tearful reunion and a mutual understanding that friends can have significantly different beliefs without resorting to conflict and litigation 鈥� and that those differences don鈥檛 have to result in victory for one, total defeat for the other.

鈥淚 would love to see Rob again. I would love to just hug him and say I鈥檓 sorry if there is anything he鈥檚 going through that is hurting him,鈥� the florist says.

It is a gesture that is also part of Stutzman鈥檚 海角大神 faith. But under the current climate of confrontation, such a reunion 鈥� and the gentle understanding that could result 鈥� might never happen.听

鈥� 听鈥� 听鈥�

Part 1:听How the push for gay rights is reshaping religious liberty in America
Part 2:听A florist caught between faith and financial ruin
Part 3:听Behind legal fight over religious liberty, a question of conscience
Part 4:听In Mississippi gay rights battle, both sides feel they are losing
Part 5:听Is wedding photography art? A wrinkle in religious liberty debate.
Part 6:听For those on front lines of religious liberty battle, a very human cost
Part 7:听A push to help听gay couples find wedding joy 鈥� without rejection