Professor outlines the facts behind the Arlene’s Flowers case

As a history professor, I teach classes in which subjective interpretation of the facts plays a major role. Facts can, and will, be interpreted differently by different groups because of their diverse perspectives. The case involving Arlene’s Flowers case is a prime example. We all know the basics — owner Baronelle Stutzman refused service to a gay couple for religious reasons and she was found guilty of discrimination under Washington law, a ruling she is appealing. But these basic facts raise important questions: Has Baronelle Stutzman been denied her religious liberties by an intrusive secular state? Is she being forced to choose between her religion and her business? Or is she exploiting the issue of religious freedom, using her own sectarian beliefs to justify discrimination?

As with every complicated issue where multiple interpretations abound, certain indisputable facts should frame the debate.

Fact No. 1: Baronnelle Stutzman is not being penalized for her religious beliefs. In fact, American citizens cannot be punished for their religious beliefs, only illegal actions based on those beliefs. Stutzman has the right to her beliefs: she can practice them; she can proclaim them; she can plaster the walls of her business with representations of them; she can even announce to customers that she does not personally support gay marriage. What she cannot do is use her beliefs to violate the law — in this case the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which guarantees Washington citizens the “right to be free from discrimination” based on, among others, race, creed, color, national origin, sex, veteran or military status and sexual orientation.

As the Superior Court judge wrote in his ruling, the “free exercise” of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment is not unlimited. Citing Reynolds v. United States, he explains that religious beliefs do not excuse illegal actions because “to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Stutzman is still free to her beliefs, but she is not free to use her beliefs as justification for disobeying the law without consequences. If Stutzman wants to violate state law as a matter of conscience, she is free to do that, but the attorney general also has a responsibility to enforce the law as it now stands.

Fact No. 2: State power is not being used to financially ruin Stutzman. In fact, the Washington AG would have allowed Stutzman to pay minimal fines as long as she agreed not to violate the law again — an offer she refused. The Superior Court judge, after ruling that she had indeed violated the state’s anti-discrimination law (a finding even Stutzman does not dispute), ordered that she pay a $1,000 fine and $1 for court costs and fees — not exactly an onerous burden. After raising $174,000 in her GoFundMe campaign, it would be inaccurate to say that this case has ruined Stutzman financially.

Fact No. 3: State law cannot compel Stutzman to provide flower arrangements for same-sex marriages. In fact, Stutzman does not have to choose between her beliefs and her business. She could simply stop doing weddings (which she reports constitute less than 10 percent of her revenues). The state cannot order her to provide any particular service (just as it could not order a Kosher deli to stock bacon), only that she provide the services she does offer on “a non-discriminatory basis.” By refusing to do weddings, Stutzman could, if she desired, honor her beliefs and abide by Washington law and continue to have a thriving business. This is not to minimize the sacrifice — she would have to give up something she loves as well as a small percentage of her revenue, but sacrifice is often the price we pay for acts of conscience.

Fact No. 4: The gay couple — Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed — did not seek to enrich themselves at the expense of Stutzman. Ingersoll and Freed asked only for $7.91 in compensation for gas they expended in finding another florist that would serve them. Certainly they could have just moved on with their lives, but they took a stand for equal protection under the law, and for that principle they, like Stutzman for her principles, have paid dearly in time and emotional stress.

Should we have laws that require business owners to treat all citizens equally? Should we allow religious exemptions for public accommodations? These are important questions that we might debate further, but for now they are settled law. Stutzman’s supporters can launch a campaign to change the laws, but they are not factually accurate in arguing that her religious freedom has been violated or that she is being forced to choose between abiding by the law or financial ruin.

This story was originally published November 14, 2015 at 12:56 PM with the headline "Professor outlines the facts behind the Arlene’s Flowers case."