Skip to main content

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

Description:  A longtime customer of floral artist Barronelle Stutzman asked her to design and create custom floral arrangements for his same-sex ceremony. She politely told him that she couldn’t participate in the ceremony because of her religious beliefs, and she referred him to three other local florists. After the customer’s partner described the conversation on his Facebook page, other media outlets started to report on the situation. After learning about the situation in the media, the Washington state attorney general filed a lawsuit against Stutzman, claiming that state law required her to create custom floral art celebrating same-sex ceremonies or give up her wedding business. Shortly after that, the American Civil Liberties Union also sued her on behalf of the same-sex couple.


Barronelle Stutzman
Friday, Jul 2, 2021

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Kristen Waggoner regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday not to review the Washington Supreme Court’s decision against floral artist Barronelle Stutzman in Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll:

“Although the outcome of this case is tragic, the critical work of protecting the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans must continue. No one should be forced to express a message or celebrate an event they disagree with. A government that can crush someone like Barronelle, who kindly served her gay customer for nearly a decade but simply declined to create art celebrating one sacred ceremony, can use its power to crush any of us regardless of our political ideology or views on important issues like marriage. Thankfully, other courts have recognized that the Constitution does not allow this. Unlike the Washington Supreme Court in Barronelle’s case, the Arizona Supreme Court and the 8th Circuit have ruled that the government cannot force creative professionals to create artistic expression that violates their religious beliefs. We are confident that the Supreme Court will eventually join those courts in affirming the constitutionally protected freedom of creative professionals to live and work consistently with their most deeply held beliefs.”

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

# # # | Ref. 40415



Videos


Commentary


Previous News Releases


Legal Documents

AG complaint: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers
ACLU complaint: Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Answer to ACLU complaint: Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Answer to Washington AG and countersuit against AG: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ferguson
Complaint: Arlene’s Flowers v. Ferguson
Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on claims against Barronelle Stutzman in her personal capacity: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Trial court ruling on personal capacity: State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers
Motion to stay: Arlene's Flowers v. Ferguson
Stay order: Arlene's Flowers v. Ferguson
Trial court summary judgment ruling: State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers
Notices of appeal: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Statement of grounds for direct review by Washington Supreme Court: State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers
Opening brief filed with Washington Supreme Court: State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers
Reply brief of appellants filed with Washington Supreme Court: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Washington Supreme Court order granting review: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Friend-of-the-court briefs filed with Washington Supreme Court: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Washington Supreme Court opinion (2017): State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Petition for writ of certiorari (2017): Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll
Amicus briefs filed with U.S. Supreme Court (2017): Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll
Petitioners' reply brief: Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll
Brief of appellants on remand: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Amicus brief filed with Washington Supreme Court by multiple state attorneys general: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Reply brief of appellants: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Appellants’ response to amici curiae: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Washington Supreme Court opinion (2019): State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers
Petition for writ of certiorari (2019): Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll
Amicus briefs filed with U.S. Supreme Court (2019): Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll
Reply brief filed with U.S. Supreme Court (2019): Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll
Supplemental brief of petitioners: Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll
Petition for rehearing: Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll

Related Resources

ABOUT Kristen Waggoner

Kristen K. Waggoner serves as general counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. In this role, Waggoner oversees the U.S. legal division, a team of 100 attorneys and staff who engage in litigation, public advocacy, and legislative support. ADF has represented the prevailing parties in multiple U.S. Supreme Court victories, including Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, which she argued at the Supreme Court. She also served as counsel in the free speech victory the Supreme Court handed down in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. She is a Peer Review Rated AV® Preeminent™ attorney in Martindale-Hubbell, who clerked for Justice Richard B. Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court after law school and served in private practice in Seattle for nearly 20 years. Waggoner is admitted to practice in multiple states, the Supreme Court, and numerous federal district and appellate courts.