Arlene's Flowers Case Study

In a political atmosphere where homosexuality has become trendy, and those opposing it citing religious freedom are criticized, a debate has arisen between parties both for and against this exercise of religious freedom. Issues stem from the applications of personal religious freedom and their applications to business. This position has become increasingly difficult for courts to rule on, especially given the supreme court ruling on the legalization of same sex marriage which pushed this debate on religious freedom into the living room of America and out of court. The debate has captivated the interests of individuals in the US, even those without strong feelings for or against, given the conundrum that has arisen between the clash of religious freedom and personal expression. The question remains, should the views of an individual entitle them to discriminate when when conducting business with another, and in a union founded upon the separation between
Arlene’s Flowers) who cited her right under the First Amendment to religious freedom. Arlene’s Flowers was one of the first businesses to be heavily fined for violating Washington’s new anti-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Arlene, the owner of Arlene’s flowers, cites her personal religious freedom in her claim validating her discriminatory actions against two men who sought her floral services for their wedding. The plaintiff argues that while she is free to practice her religion, her views on their marriage is not grounds for denial of service. Furthermore, although Arlene has personal prejudice against same-sex marriage, these convictions do not require her to violate her religious freedom, insisting that their marriage does not infringe on her personal