By JD Goulet
This has been a weird few years. For me. For all of us. I exist in a state of tension between wanting to fade into obscurity, but also having awareness that doing so willingly serves the aims of those trying to erase people like me by force. Why should I do their job for them?
In the wee hours of the morning last night, I watched the latest Last Week Tonight with John Oliver video, this one on my old arch-enemy, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). It's probably not the way most people would choose to deal with insomnia, but I was finally able to fall into a deep and blessedly dreamless sleep afterwards. Anger is exhausting, after all.
Stirred out of my reveries by Oliver's video, I've decided that rather than let histories that exist now only in my own head (and in the minds of those who lived through them with me) be erased when I'm gone from the Earth some (hopefully distant) day, I decided to republish one of my much older essays that once existed on a long-defunct website. It went through a couple of iterations even back then as Americans were being subjected to legal and emotional whiplash following the United States Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013 and their subsequent ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in 2014. The essay was a response to the American theocracy the ADF was engineering, prompted by a local incident of discrimination against my friends by a florist that turned into a high-profile lawsuit the ADF thirstily seized on.
Here's some quick backstory on that case, for those unfamiliar, quoted from my essay:
Robert Ingersoll, a man engaged to marry his same-sex partner, Curt Freed, was refused business by Barronelle Stutzman, the shop’s owner. Both men had been regular customers of Ms. Stutzman’s for nine years, openly purchasing flowers for each other. However, when Mr. Ingersoll went into the shop last March to request flowers for his wedding to Mr. Freed, to his surprise and dismay Ms. Stutzman replied, “I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.” This blatant disregard for the law led to an eventual civil lawsuit against Ms. Stutzman from the state’s Attorney General as well as from the couple (since Ms. Stutzman refused to accept their kind offer that would have allowed her to gracefully save face and keep the whole mess out of the courtroom).
At the time this case was working its way through the courts, I was the president of the Tri-City Freethinkers (TCF), a nonprofit secular advocacy organization. Having heard through the grapevine that the defendant, Stutzman, and the ADF legal team had organized a large number of supporters to be present at an upcoming court hearing (to give the visual appearance of a popular majority to the press covering the case), I rallied TCF members to also be present in the courtroom to support the plaintiffs, Curt and Rob.
I had also been advised that a (proto-MAGA herald of Bad Things to come) State Legislator named Brad Klippert would be present and that in previous court hearings he had positioned himself behind Curt and Rob to try to intimidate them, a tactic I had witnessed from him on other occasions over the years in city hall and school board meetings where I joined with TCF members to advocate for separation of religion and government. I made sure to arrive early so Curt and Rob could take comfort that allies had their backs in a literal sense.
As we gathered at the court house, we passed a large circle of people in prayer out front. Many were wearing red, and all had pinned red flowers to their shirts to signify their support of Stutzman (and by extension, Christian supremacy). While they were busy appealing to their God, we filed into the courtroom, occupying over half the available seats. When the flower-clad pious finally entered the court room, they were caught off guard and visibly irritated to discover few seats left for them. Those who couldn't find seats were relegated to standing in the hallway outside.
Representative Klippert—wearing his signature tacky, patriotic tie (and of course, a red flower pinned to his lapel) and unwilling to accept his exclusion so easily—leaned down, his face level with mine where I sat to shield my friends from him, and asked me to move down the bench to make room. The quick-thinking friend next to me leaned around and responded with sweet malice in her tone, "I'm sorry, looks like there's no room for you here." Taken aback by not getting his way, Klippert skulked off to squeeze himself into one of the remaining spaces on the opposite side of the court room.
Enter Kirsten Waggoner, the ADF's fundie baby voiced-CEO discussed at length in John Oliver's video. Back then, she was one of ADF's lead attorneys, using techniques honed by low-life ambulance-chasing lawyers to sniff out opportunities to enshrine a narrowly defined Christian privilege into the law. Having witnessed Waggoner's sickly sweet demeanor in action as she spun a manipulative and reality-bending yarn in the courtroom, the mention of her name still evokes revulsion and ire in me. I will always remember her as one of the most chillingly evil people I have ever shared walls and a roof with.
Judge Ekstrom ruled against Stutzman that day. As a pawn for the ADF, she would go on to appeal many times over the years and continue to be defeated. The Supreme Court declined to hear her case in 2021 and that was the end of the road for Stuzman. She ceased to have utility to those who used her.
As of 2022, the flower shop has a new owner who welcomes LGBTQ customers. My courageous friends, Curt and Rob, started a new life together in another state where they could be out of the spotlight. I last saw them in 2020 when I stopped to pay a visit while making my own cross-country move to get out of the spotlight. Before I left my hometown for good, the ADF listed the organization I founded, Tri-City Freethinkers, on their map of hate groups. That's a badge of honor I wear with a sense of accomplishment.
Unfortunately, the ADF has been winning. A lot. In 2014, the Supreme Court backslid in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a ruling the ADF was instrumental in achieving. (For me, that ruling heavily foreshadowed what was to come in the years that followed.) As John Oliver quotes the ADF itself, "Since 2011, ADF has represented parties in 15 victories at the Supreme Court" and since their founding "ADF has played various roles in 77 Supreme Court victories." They are going hard under Waggoner's fetid leadership as she seeks to lead hem to victory in a case that would give public taxpaer funds to an online Catholic school, a case the Supreme Court heard this week.
"Unfortunately, given the state of the courts, a lot of this is out of our hands right now, but I do think, a the very least, there's value in everyone knowing exactly what we're dealing with here" Oliver said, which is why I'm here telling you this story. I've been up close and personal, and I want people to know what they are dealing with.
It's important to me to note that some of that essay no longer describes who I have become as a person over the last decade. For example, I cringe at the thought of having ever identified as a liberal, and even atheist is a label I'm disinclined to feel much affinity with anymore. The reasons for my distancing myself from "Enlightenment Atheism" are covered thoroughly in this excellent article for The Flytrap by Chrissy Stroop: Can the American Secular Movement Listen to Its Better Angels? If the Atheist Movement can ever shed the imperialist, supremacist millstone hanging from its neck, I may reconsider. Until then, my energy is better channeled elsewhere.
Your intereraction with and redistribution of my writing is encouraged and greatly appreciated. If you liked this and you are financially able, please consider leaving me a tip at Ko-fi! My content will always remain free to enjoy, but every bit of support helps me to keep going.
And now, on to the 2014 essay:
The following essay was originally published on 5 August 2014 on the now defunct blog, Popper's Inversion.
From DOMA to Hobby Lobby: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
With all the clashes between religion and government that have happened over the course of the last several months, most recently culminating in the infamous Hobby Lobby ruling by the Supreme Court, I’ve kept busy doing what little I can to help combat the encroachment of theocracy. Several times over the last few weeks I’ve thought to write something about the ruling, but I don’t know that I have anything unique to add to the discussion. It’s been a hot topic, and many more experienced and widely-read writers than I am have thoroughly covered the issues.
Following a conversation this evening with a family member, I revisited something I wrote almost a year ago after the Supreme Court handed down another monumental historical ruling, but in that case, they made the correct decision (well, correct from the point of view of a liberal atheist like me). Rereading what I wrote last year reminds me of why it’s so shocking that the five Justices ruled as they did in the Hobby Lobby case. That a business could claim a religion was so ludicrous an idea it was unthinkable a year ago.
Since I am doubtful that I can contribute anything groundbreaking on the Hobby Lobby ruling, I thought I’d reblog my article from last year that focused on the issue of business owners’ religions and whether their beliefs gave them a right to ignore the laws the rest of us must abide by, in this case regarding the Arlene’s Flowers debacle. A mere year ago I cheered when news broke of the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. I had hope that our country was going to get turned back around. I had some small hope that bigoted business owners like Barronelle Stutzman would realize they were fighting a losing battle, lay down their religious weapons, and accept that they really were on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, it seems more like we’ve taken one step forward and two steps back and are about to two step our way back into the Dark Ages.
Do Business Owners Have the Legal Right to Discriminate Against Others Based on their Personal Religious Beliefs?
An Open Letter to Religious Believers
A simple Google search, or examination of any number of American (and even international) newspapers and magazines, would bring up multiple cases of discrimination against people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT), among others. Recently, as more and more states have passed laws or lifted bans that allow same-sex couples to legally marry, there has been a trend of small business owners refusing to provide goods or services to would-be LGBT customers. Whether these businesses sell photography services, wedding cakes, or flowers, the common theme in each case has been the same: “I won’t sell to you because according to my religion you are committing a crime against god, and I refuse to participate in what I perceive to be your sinful behavior.”
I will not address holy book-based arguments from religious believers that are for or against (mostly against) homosexuality, as what they believe is irrelevant to the issue (which I will show). However, an entire book could be written on all the ways these arguments are nonsense, and indeed, many authors have done so already.
I will focus on what the law has to say about discrimination based on sexual orientation. Specifically, I will focus on the issue within the context of Washington State law, because not all states have joined the 21st century in their treatment of individuals, and I am more familiar with the law in my own state. Also, I will focus on this issue as it pertains to business owners, using the Arlene’s Flowers case (more detail on this later) as a prime example of illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.
First, let’s review some legal and historical facts. At the opening of 2006, Washington State’s law against discrimination (RCW.49.60.10 et seq.), as amended by House Bill 2661, went into effect, which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces had already been prohibited in Washington State since 1991 when Governor Booth Gardner issued an Executive Order. The passing of House Bill 2661 went an important step further than the Executive Order to ensure sexual orientation could not legally be used as a reason to discriminate by private employers or in the areas of real estate transactions/housing, credit or lending transactions, insurance, public accommodation, or general commerce transactions.
I could end this letter on the legality or illegality of discrimination here and now. There you have it. It’s been illegal for a business owner to discriminate based on someone’s sexual orientation in Washington State since 2006. End of story. But that wouldn’t be very interesting, would it? Let’s dig deeper.
I promised you I would provide some detail on the Arlene’s Flowers case, for those of you who aren’t familiar. In this short and not-so-sweet version, Robert Ingersoll, a man engaged to marry his same-sex partner, Curt Freed, was refused business by Barronelle Stutzman, the shop’s owner. Both men had been regular customers of Ms. Stutzman’s for nine years, openly purchasing flowers for each other. However, when Mr. Ingersoll went into the shop last March to request flowers for his wedding to Mr. Freed, to his surprise and dismay Ms. Stutzman replied, “I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.” This blatant disregard for the law led to an eventual civil lawsuit against Ms. Stutzman from the state’s Attorney General as well as from the couple (since Ms. Stutzman refused to accept their kind offer that would have allowed her to gracefully save face and keep the whole mess out of the courtroom).
I think I have heard every excuse imaginable (and then some!) for why many people think that Ms. Stutzman had the right to do what she did. I’ve spent an inordinate amount of my personal time refuting every single one of them. For the purpose of this communication, I will address just a few of the more pervasive ones.
This is a Christian nation! We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles, weren’t we?
False. One could author a hefty volume to dispel this common fallacy. Suffice it to say, we are emphatically not a Christian nation, or a nation founded on the principles of any other religion. Since I know many won’t simply take my word for it, I will go into a bit more detail on this issue.
There is no mention of God in the Constitution. Not even once. And the only mention of religion at all is in Article 6: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In the First Amendment to the Constitution, included in the Bill of Rights, is this constraint on both religion and government: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Furthermore, as President John Adams made very clear in the Treaty of Tripoli, “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” This was a clarification of the stance of the United States government when it comes to matters of religion… that it has no stance. It is, and must remain, neutral to religion.
In addition, Supreme Court cases throughout United States history have affirmed the right of a person to believe what he or she wishes, but have also affirmed that their beliefs do not give them the right to act on those beliefs when they are contrary to laws in matters that are of interest to the state or abridge the rights of others.
Given what some people’s beliefs would give them license to do if their religion’s tenets were strictly adhered to, one can conclude that chaos, religious wars, and slaughter on a massive scale would be the end result, just to name a few problems. In fact, this is precisely what the Founding Fathers sought to avoid by building a secular governing structure. They had seen how religion could destroy nations in Europe and beyond.
But most Americans are Christians, and certainly most Americans have some sort of religion. That has to count for something!
No. Sorry. Majority rule isn’t the way things work in America. In fact, we have specific checks and balances in place to prevent a “tyranny of the majority.” Democracy cannot exist without protecting the rights of the minority. By its very nature, a democracy ensures that the minority has the chance to become the majority through the power of the ballot.
Those in the majority at any given time should always bear in mind that they may (and at some point likely will) find themselves in the minority. Democracy is what ensures that they will have a chance at again becoming the majority. Some of the most oppressive countries in the world are such because the rights of the minority are not protected, resulting in brutal dictatorships and an absence of basic human rights.
I thought a business owner had the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason? I mean, look at those signs that say, “No shoes. No shirt. No service.”
Wrong again. A business owner can refuse business to a person for reasons that are not protected by the state’s anti-discrimination law. There is no legal protection for people who don’t wear shoes. (So if you are a Hobbit, I’m sorry, but no one has to serve you second breakfast. I suggest you try Rivendell.)
But my religious rights are being trampled on when you make my business obey these laws! What about my freedom of religion?!
First of all, you are not your business. A business is a separate legal entity that does not have the religious freedom you, as a person, have.
Second, you do have freedom of religion… right up until the point where your freedom infringes on the freedoms of others. Religious freedom doesn’t mean freedom to force everyone to follow your religion.
Why can’t they just go buy their flowers from another florist who doesn’t mind selling to gay people?
This is the same argument that was used prior to and during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s-60s. If you’ve paid any attention to history, you’ll recall how well that worked out. (Hint: it didn’t.)
Consider this hypothetical scenario recently proposed by a person who called the office of Senator Mike Hewitt (R), Walla Walla, who had signed onto Bill 5927 (dubbed the “Right to Discriminate” bill) proposed by Senator Sharon Brown (R), Kennewick. The caller posed the question that if a small community had only a single grocery store, and the religious owner refused to sell to gay people on the grounds that supporting their subsistence was contrary to his beliefs, where could a gay person reasonably go to purchase food? The staffer’s shocking response: “Gays can just grow their own food.”
This incident perfectly illustrates what is wrong with the idea that someone can just go somewhere else. Whether there was another flower shop across the street from Arlene’s proclaiming “We support gay marriage!” on their signage is beside the point. If followed to its logical conclusion, inequality is, in fact, the end result of “separate but equal.” Senator Hewitt did eventually come out as not endorsing the statement by his wayward staffer. He also claimed he hadn’t fully read the bill before signing on to it. However, as of this writing, Senators Brown and Hewitt, along with eight other Washington State Senators, are still attempting to push this bill through the Senate.
In writing the majority opinion on the recent Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ruling, which was struck down as unconstitutional, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy declared that the Defense of Marriage Act interferes “with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages.” He continued:
It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State.
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.
The same reasoning used in this Supreme Court ruling can be applied to the Arlene’s Flowers case. Refusal to do business with anyone, no matter how sincere and deeply held one’s beliefs are, is not a valid excuse to break the law in a secular nation. To allow otherwise deprives people of their “personhood and dignity” and treats people disrespectfully, unequally, and as second-class citizens.
I have heard many other arguments from those that are opposed to what they see as an abridgment of their religious freedom, but as I indicated at the outset of this letter, the majority of them are irrelevant and lack substance. Whatever you may think about the morality of homosexuality, based on your religion’s teachings, is a legally moot issue.
The outcome of this seemingly small and insignificant case has major implications for the civil rights of everyone in the United States, including those of religious people themselves. A word of caution to any who would impose their majority will on others: eventually the table may turn and you will find yourself on the receiving end of tyranny, in truth. When it comes to the Christian religion in particular, I urge you to tread lightly because the privileged status you have long enjoyed as the majority in America is swiftly coming to a close. A New Enlightenment is afoot, and its harbingers do not forget.
JD Goulet (they/she) is an American-born former corporate writer/editor & learning product designer, political leader, Planned Parenthood board member, and secular movement leader. Throughout her career, she has been an educator and champion for inclusion and wellbeing, especially at the intersection of disability, neurodiversity, sexuality & gender, and class. Their bylines appear in Harvard Business Review, Tumbleweird Magazine, Solarpunk Stories, and various regional publications. She lives in Portugal with her wife and two dogs.
Your interaction with and redistribution of JD's writing is encouraged and greatly appreciated. If you liked this and you are financially able, please consider leaving her a tip at Ko-fi! Their content will always remain free to enjoy, but every bit of support helps them to keep going.
