barronelle stutzman is stirring up headlines. the 70-year-old grandmother is the owner of Arlene’s Flower Shop in washington state, and identifies as a devout christian. she’s also opposed to gay marriage – so much so that she refused to provide flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding.
this week a washington judge ruled that refusal was precisely what it sounds like – discrimination – and therefore, illegal according to the state’s consumer protection and anti-discrimination law.
washington state attorney general bob ferguson has made the decision to seek legal fees and penalties not only against the flower shop, but also against stutzman herself.
the law allows for penalties of $2,000 per violation, which means that for every gay or lesbian couple stutzman refuses to serve she could receive the hefty fine. according to stutzman’s lawyer, these fines, in addition to her attorneys’ fees and court costs for the pending appeal could reach well into seven figures.
still, the soon-to-be bankrupt granny is sticking to her guns by refusing to serve gay and lesbian couples. she’s digging in her heels – in her own words, ‘because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’
that’s facsinating to me…considering that it was jesus christ himself who showed ‘the full extent of his love’ by serving his disciples – including judas, whom he knew had betrayed him.
certainly selling out the messiah for just thirty pieces of silver was reason enough for jesus to refuse to serve the back-stabbing disciple, but that’s not what he did.
instead, just as he had planned, jesus loved them – all of them – to the full. he got up from the supper, laid his garments to the side and took the form of the lowliest servant – putting water in a basin, he began to wash the disciples’ feet, wiping off the dirt and grime from their journey to the promised land of their ancestors with the towel around his waist.
and after washing each and every one of them – including judas the betrayer – he re-donned his garments and invited them to share in the first eucharist, reclining with them at the table, saying, ‘do this – what i have done for you, do for one another.’
this, he told them, is how the rest of the world ‘will know that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.’
according to jesus in john’s gospel, ‘love for one another’ – that new and important command from the christ we claim to follow – is lived out in the act of service.
so back to the flowers…
for stutzman to claim that it’s because of her relationship with jesus that she’s refusing to serve another human being – regardless of their orientation – is, quite simply, terribly misguided.
whether its refusing to provide floral arrangements, or refusing to bake a cake, or refusing to take photographs for a same-sex wedding, doing so ‘in the name of jesus’ is nothing short of hijacking his life, teachings and example of radical inclusivity, steeped in humility and motivated by love.
don’t be fooled – this isn’t about that all-too-often-tossed-around-catchphrase :: religious liberty.
the courts aren’t rushing into the private sector with a police-state mentality, forcing non-affirming pastors to perform gay weddings, nor intimidating conservative churches into accepting same-sex couples into membership or coercing ministers to teach ‘pro-gay’ theology from the pulpit against their personal religious convictions.
these laws are simply upholding a standard we’ve actually dealt with in this country before – that public business owners cannot choose to serve certain customers and not others, regardless of their religious convictions.
to do so is discrimination.
to discriminate in the name of jesus? i suspect that may be an adventure in missing the point.
lain: In short....she had no problem selling to gays. She did have a problem catering to a specific event.
