The holy grail of the Left is the sexual revolution. Anything and everything that may discriminate against it is itself to be discriminated against. Any who dare refuse conformity to this new “morality” will be punished. Coming from this mindset one can then begin to understand the “logic” of the Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling against florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers. She refused to provide service for a same-sex wedding, and therefore must be punished.

Using a creative form of epistemological gymnastics, the court interpreted the term “orientation” to mean not only a state of being but also to be an action as well. It would be akin to conflating ethnicity with activity.

While the primary focus of case is obviously over the question of freedom of religion, what might become the root factor in question is the impact of the ruling on freedom of speech. Stutzman’s argument for refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding ceremony was based on a strongly held religious belief that prohibited her from condoning or participating in what she believes to be an immoral celebration. This is evidenced by the fact that she had previously sold flowers to the individuals fully knowing they were homosexuals. In so doing she was not making any kind of statement regarding an activity due to the context of the sale. When the context of the sale changed to one of a same-sex wedding, she refused to sell her service due to her personal moral convictions regarding marriage.

Stutzman and her legal representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom — recently labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center — are committed to taking the case to the Supreme Court, though given the unanimity of lower courts trampling religious liberty it’s unlikely the Court will take it on just yet. Still, because this case is one of many where religious liberty is being condemned in favor of sexual liberty, it needs its day in court.