Hello, Bigotry! Get Me Rewrite!

JESUSLAND—Actual headline: State of Washington goes after 'discriminating' florist Rewritten headline: State of Washington goes after discriminating florist Original story (OS): The owner of Arlene's Flowers in Washington state is waiting to find out if a court will strip her of virtually everything she owns for standing for her faith. Rewritten story (RS): The owner of Arlene's Flowers in Washington state is waiting to find out if a court will find her guilty of practicing sexual discrimination in violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws that several people of her fundamentalist religious persuasion believe have no place in American jurisprudence. OS:  The owner is Barronelle Stutzman, 70, who spent 40 years building up Arlene's Flowers until she declined to provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding. RS: The owner is Barronelle Stutzman, 70, who spent 40 years building up Arlene's Flowers & Gifts until a gay couple asked her to provide a few flower arrangements for their same-sex wedding, which she refused to do because, according to her attorney, "She has a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage, not homosexuality." But since such marriage is legal in Washington state, Stutzman's sexism, under the guise of "religious freedom," is a violation of civil rights laws every bit as much as were the violations committed by businesses throughout the American South which denied feeding or selling things to people of color well into the 1960s. OS: Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kellie Fiedorick says Washington has sued Stutzman's business, and sued her personally, based on its anti-discrimination laws. RW: Kellie Fiedorick, an attorney with an ultra-right-wing legal corporation, founded by the executive director of the Meese Commission and the "point" organization for so-called "religious freedom" cases throughout the country, says Washington has sued Stutzman's business, and sued her personally, based on its anti-discrimination laws. OS: The attorney further explains: "And so everything—whether it's assets in the business or her personal assets, savings—she stands to lose everything because they've gone after her in an unprecedented fashion, I might add, to try to really attack her." RW: The attorney further attempted to justify Stutzman's actions by saying, "And so everything—whether it's assets in the business or her personal assets, savings—she stands to lose everything because they've gone after her in an unprecedented fashion, I might add, to try to really attack her." Of course, the charges are "unprecedented" because most people, even religious ones, obey the anti-discrimination laws, and since the woman willfully discriminated against two upstanding U.S. citizens and apparently would do it again if given the chance, a court may find that her assets are part of a discriminatory scheme and take some of them from her in the form of fines. OS: Fiedorick says the case has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It's a matter of her faith. RW: Fiedorick says the case has nothing to do with sexual orientation (except, of course, that over the 37 years Stutzman has been in business, she has never refused to do wedding arrangements for any heterosexual couples). It's a matter of her faith (except that making flower arrangements for gay people doesn't affect her ability to attend church, to gather with other religious people, or to pray in any manner she chooses, so there's no way that her First Amendment rights have been violated). OS: "So what this really comes down to," says Fiedorick, "is she was unable to participate in this because of what marriage means to her, and what her faith tells her is that marriage is a sacred covenant." RW: "So what this really comes down to," says Fiedorick, "is she was unable to participate in this because of what marriage means to her (even though no one was asking her to marry another woman, just to make a couple of fucking flower arrangements), and what her faith tells her is that marriage is a sacred covenant (which apparently, in her view, isn't available to people of the same sex, even though gay people have been married in many churches—even Christian ones—across the country, and as it turns out, neither the hetero marriages in those communities nor the people in those communities who attend those churches have been adversely affected by anyone's same-sex marriage)." OS: Preliminary arguments have been offered on motions related to the case and a ruling should come soon with a trial date set for March 23. RW: Preliminary arguments have been offered on motions related to the case, which typically include claims that the person's First Amendment religious rights have been violated—the Hobby Lobby case is sure to be invoked here—that refusing to serve homosexual persons isn't really discrimination in the same way that refusing to serve blacks or Asians or Hispanics is, and that Stutzman's "creative energies" cannot by law be channeled into arranging flowers nicely for gay people, and a ruling should come soon with a trial date set for March 23. Thanks to the aptly-named Charlie Butts for the inspiration for this story! Pictured: The bigot herself.