The rights of free association are under attack in the U.S.A today. If an establishment wishes to be exclusive, that is their right, or at least it used to be. If they angered or excluded enough people, they may be forced to close, which is the public’s right. However, the Supreme Court is sticking to the Constitution, and has just granted an appeal to “Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington,” A.O.L. News has confirmed.
The popular florist had been fined for refusing to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding, but now “the court erased a lower court ruling against her.” NBC News has verified that “after the court gave a narrow victory on June 4 to a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding,” it was clear that this needed a second look, as well.
America has always had certain clubs like the American Negro Oldtimers’ Club in Canton, Ohio, which are beloved institutions that harm no one. There has never been anything wrong with these places, no one ever cried racism before, but now it is being viewed as “phobic” to have a place opened only to select people.
Some people will ask what happens if a person won’t serve a certain race, however. That should be their right, just as it is the right of everyone who is angered by the foolish idea to never go there, thus forcing them to close.
The florist’s case now returns to Washington D.C. “for further consideration in light” of the baker’s case and it’s outcome.
One of the problems is that the case never said how future issues should be handled when they will inevitably arise. The other problem is that it does not say how religious liberty and gay rights are to deal with the impasses moving forward.
Stutzman said that making the arrangements for the same-sex couples was counter to his “relationship with Jesus Christ.” In America, no one should be forced to do any work for anyone. The public is free to pass judgment by choosing to shop/buy there (or not to), but no one should be free to make someone act against their conscience, according to the Constitution.
Jack Phillips, the baker, and Stutzman agree that their craft is art. As such, “to create them for a same-sex wedding would violate her freedom of expression.”
Stutzman’s lawyer is “Kristen Waggoner of the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom” and he called her “an artist with a conscience who cannot separate her artistic creativity from her soul.” This right is something, oddly enough, that the very liberals protesting today have always fought for.
However, like most things in today’s left, that only applies if a person happens to have their worldview, of course. That is why the same legal group is helping with both of these cases.
Democrats and others also miss the point that there are a ton of Muslim shop owners who are quite godly and have no desire to make gay wedding cakes, floral arrangements, or guest invitations to same-sex couples. This, one would think, would be a leftist battle cry, but they tend to get quite confused when a protected class is used as an example, even when it fits.
The worry is that this ruling could “allow every tattoo parlor, print shop, hair salon, photography studio, bakery, law firm, or other business whose work involves a degree of ‘expression’ to discriminate against customers.” While unlikely, let us pretend that it would.
How many bigoted tattoo artists are going to make a living in the liberal and/or libertarain, lip-pierced, culture of today, which they often serve?
It is not up to the government to tell people who they must do business with. If a shop owner feels that an establishment is wrong for who they don’t wish to serve, the slighted person is free to protest, encourage a boycott, or otherwise, legally try to show their rage. If people agree, the place will close soon enough.
Then again, they could just shop somewhere else and understand that America has all kinds of people in it. The accepting, the non-accepting, the religious, the atheist, and countless others all dwell here. Each person is free to associate with whosoever they wish.
The public decides who is worthy of their dollars, nothing more.