In the recent Supreme Court case, ROBERT INGERSOLL and CURT FREED v. ARLENE'S FLOWERS, INC, a florist, Barronelle Stutzman, refused to provide flowers for the marriage between Curt Freed and his husband Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman had sold the couple flowers before but refused to sell for their wedding, stating that it was against her religion. When taken to the lower court system, Stutzman was fined one thousand dollars on the decision that the “Public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services, instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens.” Stutzman’s attorney immediately asked for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. If Stutzman was selling wedding flowers for heterosexual couples, it is unjust to deny a …show more content…
This right covers mainly the right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination, and the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, or facilities. The state defines accommodations as places who sell goods, merchandise, services, etc. and Stutzman’s flower shop falls under that category, therefore showing that Stutzman is breaking the anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. This case would not stand to change as other supreme court case decisions have ruled in favor for the discriminated party, such as the Supreme Court case Mullins V. Masterpiece Cakeshop. Stutzman relied heavily on her argument that her religion was the reason she could not provide flowers to the couple, but this argument does not stand. The WLAD does not have an official order or commission to balance religious rights against the rights of protected class members. In my opinion, if Stutzman sells flowers to heterosexual couples, she is required to sell to all people, as sexual orientation is a protected