State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers | Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers

To book an interview, click on the "Book an Interview" button on any page at
Tuesday, March 05, 2019

Description:  Barronelle Stutzman, the sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, has for her entire career served and employed people who identify as homosexual. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington attorney general allege that she is guilty of unlawful discrimination because she acted consistent with her faith and declined to use her creative skills to design floral arrangements for the same-sex ceremony of a long-time customer, Robert Ingersoll, and another man, Curt Freed.

Floral artist to Washington Supreme Court: ‘I serve all customers; I just can’t celebrate all events’

ADF attorneys file opening brief on behalf of Barronelle Stutzman, who served customer for nearly 10 years, declining only one event
Tuesday, November 13, 2018

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing floral artist Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland filed their opening brief Tuesday with the Washington Supreme Court. The brief on behalf of Stutzman comes after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the state high court’s previous ruling against her and ordered the Washington court to reconsider the case in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.

In the Masterpiece case, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Colorado’s decision to punish cake artist Jack Phillips for living and working consistently with his religious beliefs about marriage, just as Stutzman has also been trying to do while under legal attack by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union. The two sued Stutzman after she declined, because of her faith, to personally participate in, or design custom floral arrangements celebrating, the same-sex wedding of a customer she had served for nearly 10 years.

“Barronelle serves all customers; she simply declines to celebrate or participate in sacred events that violate her deeply held beliefs,” said ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner, who argued on Stutzman’s behalf before the Washington Supreme Court in 2016. Waggoner also argued for Phillips before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Despite that, the state of Washington has been openly hostile toward Barronelle’s religious beliefs about marriage,” Waggoner explained. “It not only went after her business but also sued her in her personal capacity—putting all her personal assets, including her life savings, at risk. Rather than respecting her right to peacefully live out her faith, the government has targeted her because of her beliefs. Meanwhile, the state has applied its laws unevenly, choosing not to sue a coffeehouse owner who profanely berated and expelled customers for their Christian beliefs. In Masterpiece, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society. We are asking the Washington Supreme Court to affirm that in this case.”

While Ferguson failed to prosecute the coffeehouse, Bedlam Coffee, he has steadfastly—and on his own initiative—pursued unprecedented measures to punish 74-year-old Stutzman. The ADF brief explains that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling condemned those sorts of one-sided applications of the law against people of faith.

After Ferguson obtained a trial court order allowing him to collect on Stutzman’s personal assets, he publicized a letter offering to settle the case for $2,001. In exchange, he demanded that Stutzman give up her religious and artistic freedom. Stutzman responded, “It’s about freedom, not money. 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.”

The Washington Supreme Court later ruled that Stutzman must pay penalties and attorneys’ fees for honoring her conscience. Rather than participate in a sacred event that violates her faith, Stutzman referred Rob Ingersoll, whom she considers a friend, to several other florists in the area. The two then discussed his wedding plans, they hugged, and Ingersoll left.

As the ADF opening brief in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers explains, the state shouldn’t be allowed to crush Stutzman’s conscience. Instead, “there is a better resolution to this case—one that prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers simply because of who they are, but that protects the conscience rights of people like Mrs. Stutzman who respectfully object to creating custom art for, or personally participating in, ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs. This path is the only one that preserves First Amendment freedoms and protects people with politically unpopular beliefs about important topics like marriage.”

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
# # # | Ref. 17556

Additional resources: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers | Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers

Scroll down to view additional resources pertaining to this case and its surrounding issue
Tuesday, March 05, 2019

Previous news releases:

  • 2018-06-25: US Supreme Court sends floral artist case back to Washington court in light of Masterpiece decision
  • 2018-06-05: ADF, floral artist respond to Washington AG regarding impact of Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling
  • 2017-08-22: Broad support for artistic freedom reflected in numerous briefs at Supreme Court
  • 2017-07-14: Floral artist asks US Supreme Court to protect her freedom
  • 2017-02-16: Washington floral artist to ask US Supreme Court to protect her freedom
  • 2017-02-16: Washington Supreme Court to issue decision Thursday in floral artist case
  • 2016-09-14: Floral artist to Washington Supreme Court: Protect my artistic freedom
  • 2016-09-30: Support for floral artist at full bloom
  • 2016-03-03: Washington Supreme Court will hear case over floral artist’s freedom
  • 2016-02-08: Washington floral artist’s freedom firmly rooted in federal, state constitutional law
  • 2015-08-10: ADF to Wash. council: Religious freedom resolution protects business owners
  • 2015-06-01: Wash. grandmother’s home, livelihood, freedom at stake
  • 2015-04-28: ADF asks Washington Supreme Court to review floral artist’s case
  • 2015-03-27: Wash. floral artist’s home, savings still at risk after court judgment
  • 2015-02-20: Floral artist responds to Wash. attorney general's settlement offer
  • 2015-02-18: Wash. floral artist’s home, savings at risk of state seizure after court ruling
  • 2014-12-18: Wash. grandmother’s religious freedom, livelihood at stake
  • 2014-12-04: State AG targets Wash. grandmother’s religious freedom and personal assets
  • 2013-10-28: Florist to court: Dismiss Wash. AG's attack on religious freedom
  • 2013-05-21: Wash. florist answers ACLU lawsuit
  • 2013-05-16: Wash. florist will not wilt, sues AG to reclaim religious freedom

  • Jonathan Scruggs: Arlene’s Flowers case no way to settle disputes (Tri-City Herald, 2018-12-10)
  • James Gottry: Washington state, ACLU aren’t letting up in crusade against florist’s religious liberty (Daily Signal, 2018-11-15)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: My state turned my life upside down because of my religious beliefs (Gospel Coalition, 2018-07-02)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: Washington state florist: My life has been turned upside down because of my religious beliefs (Fox News, 2018-06-29)
  • Chris Potts: Here’s why the florist and the baker aren’t like the Red Hen’s owner (PoliZette, 2018-06-28)
  • Jessica Prol Smith: A tale of two business owners (Daily Wire, 2018-06-27)
  • Kristen Waggoner: Floral artist faced same intolerance as Jack Phillips (National Review, 2018-06-25)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: All we ask is for the freedom to live out our beliefs (USA Today, 2018-02-25)
  • James Gottry: LGBT ideology could cost a 72-year-old florist everything (The Daily Caller, 2017-08-09)
  • Jim Campbell: Barronelle Stutzman shows sexual orientation laws treat religious people like racists (The Federalist, 2017-02-27)
  • Jim Campbell: Will court ruling against Christian florist prompt Trump to action on religious freedom? (CNS News, 2017-02-24)
  • Jim Campbell: Arguments separating fashion designers from other artists aren’t worthy of the runway (National Review, 2017-01-23)
  • Jim Campbell: Artists’ free speech rights at stake in Washington florist case (Daily Signal, 2016-11-29)
  • Kristen Waggoner and Rory Gray: When do ‘state messages’ trump free speech? (Seattle Times, 2016-11-23)
  • Jim Campbell: Liberal logic on designer who won’t dress Melania: Conscience rights for me but not for thee (CNS News, 2016-11-21)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: My case should concern everyone (Spokesman-Review, 2016-11-12)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: Florist: LGBT rights law could destroy my business (Indianapolis Star, 2016-01-27)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story (Seattle Times, 2015-11-09)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: Arlene’s Flowers owner disappointed with editorial (Tri-City Herald, 2015-07-21)
  • Barronelle Stutzman: I’m a florist, but I refused to do flowers for my gay friend’s wedding (Washington Post, 2015-05-12)


Legal documents, related news, and other related resources available in the right panel when this page is viewed at