By Bob Allen
A Southern Baptist grandmother and small business owner in Washington State is the newest face in America’s culture war over gay marriage.
A state judge ruled Feb. 18 that 70-year-old Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., broke the law when she refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding.
Stutzman, who bought the business 13 years ago from her mother, has been selling flowers to Robert Ingersoll, a gay man, for years, but when he told her in 2013 he was getting married she replied she could not do flowers for his wedding “because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.”
A few weeks later Stutzman received a letter from the state attorney general’s office accusing her of violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits business owners operating “places of public accommodation” from discriminating against customers based on factors such as race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple in April 2013, followed by a consumer protection lawsuit by Attorney General Bob Ferguson the same week. Stutzman, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, countersued the attorney general claiming “sincerely held religious convictions” that the Bible teaches that marriage is the union of a woman and a man prevented her from using her creative talents in a way that would imply endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Stutzman attributed her beliefs to teachings of the Southern Baptist Convention, including a resolution adopted at the 2012 SBC annual meeting in New Orleans opposing attempts to frame same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue because “homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender.”
Since secular courts cannot consider the “reasonableness” of a religious teaching, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Eckstrom said legally the SBC resolution is no different than the “curse of Canaan” theory used unsuccessfully in the past to justify opposition to desegregation and interracial marriage.
Eckstrom said Stutzman has a right to her beliefs but entering into the state-licensed commercial arena imposes restrictions on conduct that discriminates on the basis of race, national origin or sexual orientation, even if the conduct is religiously motivated.
After the court decision against her, the attorney general offered Stutzman, who was previously found personally liable for actions by her business, a $2,001 settlement if she would agree to no longer do any weddings and not to appeal the ruling.
Stutzman took offense, issuing a public response that Ferguson’s offer “reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about.”
“It’s about freedom, not money,” Stutzman said. “I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important.”
Stutzman said Ferguson was “asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver.”
“That is something I will not do,” she said.
Denny Burk, a professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., wrote about Stutzman in a special commentary for CNN dated Feb. 20.
“The decision against Stutzman sets a dreadful precedent against our first freedom in the Bill of Rights: religious liberty,” Burk wrote. “The court says that she is free to believe what she wants, but not to practice her religious beliefs. The court has ruled that if she wants to run a business in the state of Washington, she must defy her conscience and participate in same-sex weddings. If she does not, then the full coercive power of the state — as well as civil liability — will be brought against her.”
Burk said there is a shift going on in society, “which inevitably leads to Christians being treated as pariahs at every level of our national life.”
Burk said Stutzman’s case “is nothing less than an egregious violation of our first freedom.”
“It is Caesar saying, ‘conscience be damned,’” he said. “Submit to the new sexual orthodoxy or risk losing everything.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom portrayed Stutzman as a lovable grandmother being punished as a private citizen and at risk of losing everything she has worked for, including her home, family business and life savings.
Gay-rights groups like Marriage Equality USA accuse conservative groups of using propaganda as misinformation to sway public opinion against gay marriage. Liberals say the real issue is that Stutzman acted in violation of the law, and if someone opens a business to serve the public it means the whole public, including those who are LGBT.