A Washington florist who refused to participate in a same-sex wedding lost a unanimous decision yesterday at the state Supreme Court. The 9-0 ruling rejected her claim to a First Amendment right to exercise her right to religious liberty in favor of the state’s anti-discrimination law. The next step for Barronelle Stutzman will be the US Supreme Court...Really? A unanimous decision for forcing a florist to make an arrangement for a gay wedding? I'm really curious to read the legal reasoning to force this kind of compulsion, one which raises all kind of additional questions. Can a Jewish baker be compelled to bake a swastika cake? How about asking a Muslim photographer to take wedding pictures in front of a drawing of Mohammad? Too bad, I guess.
Update - Here's part of the explanation from the AP:
Stutzman argued that she was exercising her First Amendment rights. But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.I guess I just don't understand why this explanation doesn't open the door for any kind of compulsion. Is freedom of commerce just an illusion or is force necessary to make sure everybody plays nice? I guess Melania Trump is going to get her Tom Ford dress after all.
"As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism," the opinion said.