|
December 2014
Arlene's Flowers: Summary of Friday's Hearing
by Joseph Backholm
On
Friday afternoon, Arlene's Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman were in
court responding to lawsuits from the Attorney General and the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for declining to decorate for a same-sex
ceremony.
Supporters of Arlene's Flowers file into the Benton County Courtroom
The
courtroom was packed with members of the public, most of whom carried
little red flowers indicating their support of Barronelle Stutzman and
Arlene's Flowers. Those who couldn't fit inside the courtroom waited in
the hallway and held signs outside the courthouse demonstrating their
opposition to the lawsuit.
The
court heard arguments on two separate motions, but no decision was
made. Judge Alex Eckstrom promised a written decision but did not give a
date.
The trial is scheduled to begin March 23rd.
Before
every trial, lawyers file pre-trial motions that decide a variety of
issues before a trial takes place, or, as in this case, could eliminate
the need for a trial altogether.
Friday's
hearing involved two summary judgment motions from each side. A summary
judgment motion is when one side essentially says, "judge you should
rule in my favor now, we don't even need a trial."
The
first motion was brought by Arlene's Flower's lawyers who argued that
the lawsuit should be dismissed because the entire incident was
essentially a miscommunication. During depositions, the customers stated
that the only thing they wanted was to purchase twigs, sticks, flowers,
and vases so they could decorate themselves. Mrs. Stutzman has stated
consistently that if she had known that was all they wanted, she would
happily have sold those things to the customers, and remains happy to do
so in the future. But she was under the impression they wanted full
wedding services, which she did not feel she could do.
The
summary judgment motion brought by the government and ACLU argued that
the judge should rule in favor of the state without a trial because by
acknowledging that she is unwilling to provide full wedding services for
same-sex ceremonies, Arlene's Flowers has admitted discriminating based
on sexual orientation.
In
response, Arlene's Flower's argued that she did not and does not
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. They cited the fact
that she had a warm, friendly, customer relationship with the plaintiffs
for nine years prior to the incident, while knowing they were in a
same-sex relationship. They argued that her willingness to serve gay
people generally, and even sell goods for a same-sex ceremony, indicates
that she does not violate on the basis of sexual orientation, only that
she is unwilling to celebrate a same-sex ceremony.
The
State argued that forcing someone to choose between their job and their
conscience is not a burden on the free exercise of religion or the
freedom of speech, then argued that even if it is a burden on the
freedom of religion, that burden is justified by the governments
compelling interest in eliminating discrimination.
Lawyers for Arlene's Flowers
questioned how compelling that interest is by pointing out that in the
eight years since sexual orientation was added to the non-discrimination
statute, the state Human Rights Commission has not found a single
instance of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Lawyers for Arlene's
Flowers also noted that Barronelle Stutzman has been the target of
dozens of profanity laced threats, including multiple death threats. No
such record of attacks directed at the plaintiffs could be found.
For
observers, this fact raises the legitimate question about who is more
likely systematic discrimination and threats; the person in a same-sex
relationship or the person unwilling to celebrate it.
Here are a few personal observations from the hearing.
First,
this is a very important case for the Attorney General. The Attorney
General's office has assigned their best lawyers, including Solicitor
General Noah Percell to argue one of the motions on behalf of the
government. Typically, the Solicitor General does appellate work. But in
light of the profile of this case and its importance to Bob Ferguson's
political career, he is already heavily investing the time of his best
lawyers in the case.
Second,
this is a very challenging assignment for Judge Eckstrom. Only a few
months ago he was a prosecutor and has only recently been appointed to
the bench. The record in this trial already includes thousands of pages
of motions and documents and he does not even have a clerk to help write
opinions or do research. While it's difficult to know the significance
of this fact, in three hours of argument he did not ask a single
question challenging a legal argument by lawyers for the ACLU or the
government. While respectful, he challenged the lawyers of Arlene's
Flowers on several occasions.
Third, this case is now
much bigger than the people involved. Robert Ingersoll, the long-time
customer and one-time friend of Barronelle Stutzman, on whose behalf
these lawsuits have been filed sat quietly behind his lawyers. He
stared at the floor while lawyers for Barronelle Stutzman read from his
deposition when he talked about how warmly she had always treated him
and how she cared about him as a person. He barely even looked at the
lawyers who were supposedly arguing on his behalf.
You
couldn't help but get the impression that he doesn't like being the
tool political forces are using to make an example out of what he knows
to be a very good woman. Pray for him.
This story is far from written and because God is good and much smarter than we are, a lot will happen we can't predict.
Thank you to those who showed up to support her. Please continue to call the Attorney General at 360-753-6200 and email your legislators about this issue.
If
you weren't able to make it to the hearing, there will be more chances.
This case will likely be in court for years and every time Barronelle
is drug into court because of her convictions we need to be there
standing with her. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. Gal 6:2
We are all Barronelle Stutzman.
No comments:
Post a Comment