Barronelle Stuzman | Gay Marriage | News | Washington

Washington Florist Barronelle Stutzman Countersues State for Discriminating Against Her Religious Discrimination


Another lawsuit has been flung in the case of Barronelle Stutzman, the Richland, Washington florist who refused to provide flowers for a longtime gay customer's wedding because of her "relationship with Jesus Christ."

The couple who were discriminated against and the ACLU, as well as the state attorney general are suing Stutzman in two separate lawsuits, and now she's countersuing the state, KING5 reports:

The Alliance Defending Freedom issued a statement Thursday, saying it is representing Stutzman in the countersuit. It says Stutzman has employed people who identify as homosexual. Despite this, she feels she’s being discriminated.

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions,” said Alliance Senior Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

The countersuit argues that the state Constitution protects Stutzman.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. And instead of making money by being a decent rational human being, this.

    Posted by: Bollux | May 17, 2013 7:45:29 AM

  2. Another circus.

    Posted by: UFFDA | May 17, 2013 7:49:47 AM

  3. Good for her for not buckling to people telling her how to run HER business. If I lived in her area, I would buy some Gardenia's from her shop.

    Posted by: XoMoDe | May 17, 2013 7:50:50 AM

  4. She has the freedome to not do business with anybody if that's what she wants, but it makes better business sense to put aside your prejudices and make some money.

    And, BTW, her prospective customers have the right not to be exposed to her religious views while attempting to conduct business with her. She should STFU.

    Posted by: Jack M | May 17, 2013 7:57:17 AM

  5. Barronelle needs to invest in a burqa and not only will the lawsuits be dropped, she'll receive an apology.

    Posted by: MIke | May 17, 2013 8:00:28 AM

  6. Another example of a christian thinking they should get a special exemption so they don't have to follow the law like everyone else does ....

    Posted by: AdamTh | May 17, 2013 8:03:05 AM

  7. all she has to do is hang a big fish in her window, post a sign that says Christians only, and have each customer fill out a form or two about their religious beliefs and she could be her own unholy trinity.

    Posted by: Dan Mc | May 17, 2013 8:03:22 AM

  8. Trolls be trollin'

    Posted by: Steven | May 17, 2013 8:04:39 AM

  9. And the usual idiots and trolls are out in force again.

    Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2013 8:07:03 AM

  10. I agree with "Dan Mc", she should just put up a rainbow flag superimposed with a red circle & cross bar. It would be legal - disgusting, but legal - and she wouldn't have any LGBT customers coming in by accident. No need for lawsuits.

    Posted by: AdamTh | May 17, 2013 8:09:10 AM

  11. No it wouldn't be legal. Read the damn law.

    Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2013 8:11:34 AM

  12. anyone who says they have a "relationship" with some guy that has been dead for 2500 years, is a loon!!!

    Posted by: Todd B | May 17, 2013 8:15:46 AM

  13. I see no difference between this woman refusing to sell product from her store that is open to the public and a department store refusing to sell a product off their shelves to a gay person. The fact that her products are custom and made to order instead of pre-made makes no difference under the non-discrimination laws in her state. Anyone who believe this woman should be allowed to refuse to do business with "certain" people must also believe that a restaurant can refuse to serve "certain" people and a hotel can refuse to rent a room to "certain" people etc, etc, etc.

    Posted by: anonymous | May 17, 2013 8:18:20 AM

  14. Also remember that there is no way that she works alone there. She has to have at least one or two other people she can delegate work to.

    Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2013 8:20:12 AM

  15. @Jack.... Please read the law in Washington. She DOES NOT have the freedom to not do business with anyone she chooses. If you open a business to the public, it must be open to EVERYONE, end of story.

    Posted by: anonymous | May 17, 2013 8:22:11 AM

  16. Oh how I'd love to be the judge presiding over this case. Her lawyer's ears would be burning.

    Posted by: johnny | May 17, 2013 8:30:24 AM

  17. One more time. This is where I live, and it is amazing what a teaching opportunity this has become. So many people are sick and tired of this cow and how she has treated her long time customers.

    Posted by: melvin | May 17, 2013 8:30:42 AM

  18. She's a law breaker - plain & simple, your honor - and a despicable practitioner of her professed Christian love, too.

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | May 17, 2013 9:00:26 AM

  19. Its funny how the "christian" right is trying to say its reverse discrimination for not letting them live by their values. Then again this whole thing is silly its not like she's the only florist in the area if anything let this woman continue what she's doing she's only going to keep loosing business by being narrow minded... and yes I'm calling her view of the world (along with every other person who shares that view) narrow minded because thats what it is. She may not be homophobic, but she's certainly heterosexist because her religious beliefs reinforce the heteronormative understanding of marriage.

    Posted by: Terry | May 17, 2013 9:16:10 AM

  20. Please let her get stuck w/ all the Court costs as well!

    That anyone has to waste time on baloney like this is beyond belief. The state should simply pull her business license for her open admission that she will not serve all people equally.

    Substitute black, latin, muslim, for gay & ask yourself if anyone would take this action seriously otherwise.

    Posted by: Pete N SFO | May 17, 2013 9:20:59 AM

  21. I grew up in Kennewick, which is one of the "Tri-Cities" that Richland also belongs to. It's interesting seeing this kind of thing being posted about. I don't think her suit stands a chance, since the nondiscrimination law is pretty clear about this kind of thing. In order to win, she'd have to have lawyers that could convince people that refusing to sell people flowers is a form of religious expression, which is gonna be a difficult thing to do.

    Posted by: Chris | May 17, 2013 9:39:21 AM

  22. @Pete N SFO You can't substitute race with sexual preference.

    Posted by: Chance | May 17, 2013 9:44:54 AM

  23. Thanks Pete N SFO. Your analogy equating religious preference and race to sexual orientation is spot on.

    Posted by: Lane | May 17, 2013 10:12:28 AM

  24. when are these people going to finally realize that what they are doing is not because of their "relationship with Jesus Christ"?

    their Jesus would not tell them to do this. it's their pastor & religious affiliation relationship that is making them do this, and it is all based on lies they have made up from their own ignorance and bigotry...

    Posted by: mike/ | May 17, 2013 10:19:28 AM

  25. Suing for the right to hate in the name of her religion.

    Like the song says, "I see your true colours, shining through."

    Posted by: Randal Oulton | May 17, 2013 10:25:50 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Talking Points: Uma, MJ and Texas« «