The Victim Card

Yeah, they're out, chock full of outrage over the case of the Washington florist who refused to do flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her "relationship with Jesus Christ." Well, now she's being sued -- not by the couple, but by the state of Washington:

The Seattle Times reports that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, had been asked by Attorney General Bob Ferguson to reconsider her decision and comply with the state's anti-discrimination laws before the lawsuit was filed.

"As attorney general, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington," Ferguson is quoted by KIRO News as saying. "Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service."

The Attorney General's Office is reportedly seeking a permanent injunction that would require Stutzman's business to comply with the state's consumer protection laws, as well as $2,000 in fines for every violation of the law.

This is, as is usually the case, about a business -- known formally as a "public accommodation" -- being in violation of existing anti-discrimination laws, not about marriage. (If you want to wade through the comments on the HuffPo article quoted, there are some choice examples of jaw-dropping ignorance.) That is not about to stop the usual suspects from sounding off about how this florist is being discriminated against because of her "deeply held religious beliefs." Joe.My.God. has a listing of the responses to date. From the ever-inflammatory Bryan Fischer:

He's got all the buzz words memorized, as you can see.

And I couldn't resist including this one from the arch-Liar for Jesus, Tony Perkins, complete with the wrong word choice:

Strange -- I always thought Perkins was literate, if not honest.

I'm sure there will be more. I'd say that I can hardly wait, but they're so predictable they're barely worth reading.

Here's a good background story on the circumstances. And this looks like the basis of her defense:

The AG's office had offered to avoid a lawsuit by giving Stutzman an opportunity to sign a contract that, in essence, would agree to "not engage" in the discriminatory practice in the future, according to a letter sent on March 21 (.pdf).

But instead of agreeing to the terms, attorneys for Stutzman fired back their own missive (.pdf) to state lawyers yesterday that appeared to lay out the crux of their legal defense. Stutzman claimed that "discrimination is not the issue," but rather that she is entitled to exercise her religious conscience and that arranging flowers is an act of personal expression, and as such, any restriction on how and where she sells flowers arrangements infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech.

"Although gay 'marriage' may be legal in Washington for the time being, the concept offends the conscious [sic] of Ms. Stutzman and many others in Washington," says the letter from attorney B. Craig Gourly of the firm Gourly | Bristol | Hembree, which is representing Ms. Stutzman.

I bet this this lawyer could get a job with Alliance Defense Fund -- after all, they never win a case anyway.

(Footnote: Here's a good analysis from Ari Ezra Waldman on the effects of the law on changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage -- and, by extension, towards gays and lesbians in general.