Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson called Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling “harmful” to LGBTQ+ Americans and signaled that it would impact the way his office enforces its antidiscrimination law.
In a 6-3 vote, the court said the state of Colorado could not enforce its own antidiscrimination law against Lorie Smith, a Christian web and graphic designer who refused to provide wedding websites for same-sex couples.
The majority, comprising the court’s more conservative justices, ruled that Smith was engaged in an expressive activity and was within her First Amendment right to refuse the expression of messages that went against her religious beliefs.
Ferguson said the ruling is “a step backward to our nation’s progress toward achieving equality for LGBTQ+ Americans.”
In a statement to Crosscut, Ferguson noted that the ruling applies to “purely artistic businesses.”
“The vast majority of Washington businesses — selling goods and services other than custom-designed products — must still abide by the clear antidiscrimination mandates in our state,” Ferguson said in his statement. “If they don’t, my office will take action.”
Ferguson has previously sought to enforce the law in an action against a business that attempted to circumvent antidiscrimination laws in the name of religious freedom and free speech. In 2013, he filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Richland florist Barronelle Stutzman for refusing to provide flowers to serve a same-sex couple. The couple Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed also filed suit against Stutzman.
In 2015, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that Stutzman discriminated against the couple and broke the state’s consumer protection and antidiscrimination laws.
The Washington Supreme Court, on two separate occasions, upheld the Benton County court’s decision. In 2017, the court unanimously ruled that Stutzman still had to follow antidiscrimination laws because selling floral arrangements and other wedding goods to a same-sex couple did not constitute free speech, nor was it an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
The 2019 ruling came after the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Washington Supreme Court after ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple.
However, the ruling in that case came because the court said a state agency had been hostile to the baker’s religious beliefs. After the Washington Supreme Court determined the courts expressed no hostility toward Stutzman and her religious beliefs, it let its initial ruling stand.