State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.

Opinion

EN BANC

 [*480]  [**1209] 

¶1 Gordon McCloud, J. — The United States Supreme Court has tasked us with deciding whether the Washington courts violated the United States Constitution’s guaranty of religious neutrality in our prior adjudication of this case. We have fully reviewed the record with this issue in mind, and we have considered substantial new briefing devoted to this topic. We now hold that the answer to the Supreme Court’s question is no: the adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple, and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such [***6]  discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution.

 [*481]  Overview

¶2 This case is back before our court on remand from the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated our original judgment and remanded “for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n.” Arlene’s Flowers, Inc. v. Washington, 138 S. Ct. 2671 (2018) (mem.). In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Supreme Court held that ] the adjudicatory body tasked with deciding a particular case must remain neutral; that is, the adjudicatory body must “give full and fair consideration”  [**1210]  to the dispute before it and avoid animus toward religion. 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1732, 201 L. Ed. 2d 35 (2018). Disputes like those presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop and Arlene’s Flowers “must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” Id.

¶3 We recognize the profound importance of a fair and neutral adjudicator. Although settled law compelled us to reject Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman’s claims the first time around, we recognized Stutzman’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” and “analyze[d] each of [her] constitutional [***7]  defenses carefully.” State v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., 187 Wn.2d 804, 815-16, 830, 389 P.3d 543 (2017). And on remand, we have painstakingly reviewed the record for any sign of intolerance on behalf of this court or the Benton County Superior Court, the two adjudicatory bodies to consider this case. After this review, we are confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion. We therefore find no reason to change our original decision in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.