© 2023 Boise State Public Radio
NPR in Idaho
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
Available On Air Stations
Amber and Rachael filed their lawsuit against Idaho in Nov. 2013. They were married Oct. 15, 2014.In November 2013, eight women -- four couples -- sued the state of Idaho over its 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.The plaintiffs, Susan Latta and Traci Ehlers, Lori Watsen and Sharene Watsen, Shelia Robertson and Andrea Altmayer, and Amber Beierle and Rachael Robertson, say Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process guarantees.Two of the couples have been legally married in other states and two have tried to get Idaho marriage licenses and been denied.Their case went to U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale in May 2014. On May 13, eight days after Dale heard the case, she struck down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban.Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden appealed that ruling in an effort to uphold Idaho's Constitution as approved by voters in 2006.On Oct. 7, 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Dale's ruling, striking down Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage. After more than a week of legal challenges, same-sex marriages began Oct. 15, 2014 in Idaho.

Judge Rules Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Broke Law

Alliance Defending Freedom
Florist Barronelle Stutzman vowed to appeal a court ruling that forces her Richland shop to serve gay couples.

A judge in Benton County, Washington, has ruled that a flower shop in the Tri-Cities broke the law when it refused to serve a gay couple planning a wedding two years ago.

The judge said Barronelle Stutzman broke state anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. In 2013, she told Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed she couldn't do the flower arrangements for their wedding because of her religious convictions against same-sex marriage.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson joined the couple in suing the florist for violating state anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. He said the florist's religious beliefs cannot be used to justify treating certain customers differently.

"The bottom line is a business can say, 'No shoes, no shirt, no service.' You're treating everybody the same,” Ferguson said. “But if you provide a certain service -- in this case, wedding flowers -- you have to treat gay couples the same as heterosexual couples.”

The case has garnered international attention and groups interested in religious freedom rallied to the defense of Arlene's Flowers and its owner.

Freed said they're pleased by the decision and they hope other businesses will take notice of their case.

"We felt what we went through was something we wouldn't wish upon others in our community,” he said. “And that's largely why we took the action that we did.”

The judge still has to assess the penalty for the florist. She could face up to a $2,000 fine.

However, lawyers for Stutzman said they will appeal. In a written statement, the defense said it is wrong that the florist could lose her shop and her savings because she operates her business according to her Christian beliefs.

“The government is coming after me and everything I have just because I won’t live my life the way the state says I should,” Stutzman said in the statement. “I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment."