Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Religious expression is not protected by the Constitution
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/20/15 | Dustin Siggins

Posted on 02/23/2015 7:38:22 AM PST by wagglebee

RICHLAND, WA, February 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Washington State Superior Court judge ruled this week that politicians have the power to restrict religious actions and expression.

Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not.

Stutzman is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington. A business owner for nearly 40 years, she was sued twice for allegedly violating the state's "Consumer Protection Act," because she refused to furnish flowers for a homosexual “marriage” service. The Act denies business owners religious liberty when it comes to sexual orientation, regardless of the owner's sincerely held beliefs.

In his decision, Ekstrom said that the 2006 law is constitutional. "For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled.

He said that "in trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations," legislatures are allowed "to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory." Ekstrom ruled that this applies "even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."

The case goes back nearly two years ago, when Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed asked Stutzman to provide flower arrangements for their "marriage." Stutzman, who had an existing professional relationship with Ingersoll, said in a deposition that “I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ I couldn’t do that, couldn’t do his wedding."

The former customers are seeking $7.91 in damages, to cover the cost of driving to another floral shop, and Stutzman faces up to $2,000 in fines plus the cost of legal fees because of charges filed by the state of Washington.

"Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said when he filed charges nearly two years ago. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”

Stutzman, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, has said she will appeal Ekstrom's decision.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is backing Ingersoll and Freed, declined to comment to LifeSiteNews.

In a public statement, the legal director for the secularist advocacy group's state chapter said that "religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or to harm others because of who they are. When gay people go to a business, they should be treated like anyone else and not be discriminated against."

However, conservative blogger Erick Erickson decried the decision, telling LifeSiteNews that "the judge should have allowed free expression of religion by allowing the florist to opt out, particularly since it was well established she would otherwise serve gay customers."

Erickson, who compared extreme gay rights activists to Islamic extremists in a post about Stutzman's case, also said that "states should allow Christians to opt out of having to provide goods and services to gay weddings." 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
"For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled.

That's to prohibit things like human sacrifice you moron.

1 posted on 02/23/2015 7:38:22 AM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; Albion Wilde; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


2 posted on 02/23/2015 7:38:56 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Excuse me?


3 posted on 02/23/2015 7:41:24 AM PST by yldstrk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

so why can a muslim in prison be told by the courts he can grow a beard due to his religious beliefs?

The country was founded on religious freedom, that was the reason why people came here in the first place. Now Libs like liberals and libertarians think it’s wrong and don’t agree but it is a fact. They think Christians are imposing their religious views onto them , but what is going on is how Christians are being targeted and having their rights stripped away.


4 posted on 02/23/2015 7:43:14 AM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Day by day,hour by hour, comma and period by comma and period moronic activist left leaning judges are stripping away the magnificent work of the founding fathers.


5 posted on 02/23/2015 7:44:32 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

At the same time the FBI is ordered to stop monitoring Mosques.


6 posted on 02/23/2015 7:45:11 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Nah. Ever since the ‘60s you could tell this was coming.


7 posted on 02/23/2015 7:47:09 AM PST by chesley (Obama -- Muslim or dhimmi? And does it matter?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not.

Unless you are Sikh who wants to wear his or her turban while on duty or a Mooselimb who doesn't want to shave his beard or a detainee at Gitmo who insists on halal meals and a prayer rug.

Otherwise, right.

Let me boil it down for you troglodyte Christians. The Constitution is un-Constitutional.

8 posted on 02/23/2015 7:47:12 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Judge Eckstrom seem to rule that I can be sued for violating someone’s civil rights because I took the LIFE ACTION of actually closing my business on a RELIGIOUS holiday, and thus could not accommadate the would-be customer.
The service I provide is provided AT THE MOMENT, not one scheduled for a later date, thus my closing denies the customer, because of my religious beliefs, the benefit of said service.
Your, (dis)Honor, go to a very warm Zip Code.


9 posted on 02/23/2015 7:47:13 AM PST by CaptainAmiigaf (N.Y. TIMES: "We print the news as it fits our views.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (The First Amendment. to the US Constitution)
Rulings like this one in Washington do two things:
10 posted on 02/23/2015 7:47:15 AM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

She cannot be forced to create a message she disagrees with.

She should try to appeal on Speech grounds.

Worth a shot: the forces of evil are aligned against religious belief.

The homosexual’s right trumps YOUR right because they say so.

But you cannot be made to speak.

She had no problem selling them cakes pies and cookies. But to bake a cake for their “marriage” was to create a message and she has every right to refuse to speak that message.


11 posted on 02/23/2015 7:48:47 AM PST by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not...."For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled. He said that "in trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations," legislatures are allowed "to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory." Ekstrom ruled that this applies "even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."

PFL

12 posted on 02/23/2015 7:49:33 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...

How does “His Honor” deny such “free exercise” protected by A-1?


13 posted on 02/23/2015 7:51:12 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAmiigaf

I think that if you close your business only to certain people, your example would be oon point.


14 posted on 02/23/2015 7:53:13 AM PST by Regal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


15 posted on 02/23/2015 7:56:35 AM PST by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

So as long as you leave your beliefs at the church door, you are okay?


16 posted on 02/23/2015 7:59:13 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder
The sad reality of the judicial system is that she is Constitutionally within her rights but if this goes all the way to the subprime Court the owned black-robed puissant blackmailed whores such as Roberts will do as their masters tell them and rule against the Constitution, albeit they will tell US that they are 'interpreting the Constitution'.

If there remain no men with convictions and the courage to stand against the blackmail and threats, the very small gaggle of dead-soul oligarchs take over the planet and toss it into the sewer for the next several hundred years. Individuals like John Roberts and John Boehner are the black-mailable shills the oligarchs allow into power knowing they will do as they are commanded to do reqardless of the treachery.

17 posted on 02/23/2015 7:59:24 AM PST by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Madison's Notes for the Bill of Rights

Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register Madison, on June 8, moved that "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

18 posted on 02/23/2015 7:59:30 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

A possible work-around for stores would be to have a subcontractor clause in their contracts. So, they can accept the contract and then sub it to another who doesn’t mind dealing with the client base. Just claim you had to sub it for health reasons.


19 posted on 02/23/2015 8:00:41 AM PST by captain_dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder

The judge is wrong. She should appeal on the grounds that the judge is prohibiting the free exercise of her religion.


20 posted on 02/23/2015 8:01:25 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson