The Supreme Court on Friday refused to take the case of Barronelle Stutzman, who has been discriminated against by the state of Washington for refusing to violate her Christian faith and support same-sex weddings.
The decision creates a conflict with other, lower, court decisions across the nation that have said a calligrapher, a printer and an adoption agency are not required to follow city or state nondiscrimination demands when they violate their Christian faith.
Even the Supreme Court itself said Colorado was “hostile” to a Christian baker, and for that reason he could not be forced to support same-sex weddings with his artistry.
Now the court has refused to take the case involving Barronelle Stutzman, who declined to provide flowers for Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed for their “wedding,” and ended up being punished by the state of Washington.
The court offered no explanation for the decision, as three judges, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said they would have heard the case.
But according to the Daily Mail, conservatives reacted negatively to Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett for “siding with liberals.”
“This is a disgrace. Kavanaugh and Barrett deserve derision and criticism for this,” explained Ryan Williams, president of the Claremont Institute.
The Stutzman case, like others that have been decided on First Amendment grounds, is on the conflict between non-discrimination demands imposed by LGBT agenda-driven local governments, and the religious rights protected by the First Amendment.
One social media commenter, SarahAnnRhoades, said, “This case was a good litmus test for whether Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh are really conservatives. They’re not.”
The Mail described, “Stutzman, a member of the Southern Baptist denomination, believes that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. In 2019, Washington state’s Supreme Court ruled that she discriminated against the couple and her lawyers vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The legal team defending Stutzman explained that she sells products to anyone, including gays and lesbians. But she simply declined to participate in a ceremony that violates her faith, a decision like those in other cases where courts have recognized the First Amendment protections.
Columnist Josh Hammer wrote, “Where in the world is Amy Coney Barrett?”
Stutzman was supported by briefs from 43 members of Congress, many religious liberty groups and elected officials from 17 states, and undoubtedly the justices may have skipped making a decision at this point, but they will face the fight again.
Supporting the florist were the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Center for Religious Expression, a long list of First Amendment scholars, the Foundation for Moral Law and the Ethics, Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Samaritan’s Purse, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Concerned Women for America, the National Legal Foundation, Public Justice Institute, the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, The Islam and Religious Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty.
In addition, elected officials for the states of Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky have weighed in.