I wrote earlier this month that the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman’s case would have far-reaching consequences for religious liberty and the freedom of speech. However, there are some costs that are much more immediate but just as devastating.
Stutzman, a 77-year-old grandmother, must now return to Washington trial court to determine how much she owes the American Civil Liberties Union for its legal fees, which could be up to seven figures, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom. She must also pay the $1,000 fine imposed on her by the state of Washington when she declined to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. And keep in mind that Stutzman’s business was also severely affected by the several years she spent in court. She stopped offering wedding services to avoid similar disputes, and she is unsure if she’ll ever be able to offer them again.
If Colorado baker Jack Phillips’s case is any indication of what’s to come for Stutzman, this is just the beginning of her financial and legal troubles. Phillips won his case before the Supreme Court and avoided having to pay the hefty fines the state of Colorado threw at him, but he has been back in court twice since then because leftist activists keep using any and every excuse they can to accuse him of discrimination and haul him back in front of the courts.
The price Phillips has had to pay for his religious convictions matters. So does Stutzman’s. But because the Supreme Court refused to take up Stutzman’s case and correct its insufficiently broad Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, Phillips, Stutzman, and other Christian business owners who do not want to create custom art expressing a message that violates their religious beliefs will continue to find themselves in financial and legal trouble.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch each went on record supporting the review of Stutzman’s case, and since four votes are enough to accept a case, that means the new conservative justices, Amy Coney Barrett or Brett Kavanaugh, also chose to deny Stutzman’s appeal, as Steve Smith noted in First Things. He goes on to say it is possible Barrett and Kavanaugh “are more interested in protecting institutional religious freedom” than in “standing up for the lone Christian dissenter” like Stutzman. Perhaps they did not think Stutzman’s case would matter outside Stutzman’s own immediate circle.
But if we’ve learned anything from Phillips’s case, it’s that leftist activists can and will use lawfare to make an example out of those opposed to their agenda. This won’t stop with Phillips or Stutzman. It won’t stop until the Supreme Court finally forces it to. And by then, the justices might just realize they’ve created their own institutional problem — one that allows private citizens across the country to be dragged to court over and over again just because they believe something different.
