About a month ago, florist Barronelle Stutzman turned down a homosexual couple requesting floral arrangements for their wedding, for she believed marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. While she had nothing against the two lovers (she even provided flowers for the two for various other events; she just refused to provide for the wedding), it wasn't long before the florist was taken to court and her decision was ruled against by both the state court and the state Supreme Court branch, under the grounds that florists were not under the protection of the First Amendment. Stutzman then took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the decision is still pending. The court's ruling will answer a great question: are florists, like other art mediums such as paint and dance, protected by First Amendment rights? The point here isn't that she is discriminating against the two based on their sexual orientation - again, she has sold flowers to the two men before - but rather that she is refusing to participate in a ceremony that violates her beliefs and values, and in a previous trial (Wooley vs. Maynard), it was proved the government cannot violate the individual mind. The question is, will that standard be upheld for this florist?
Here's a link to an article on the event.
No comments:
Post a Comment