Canas 1 Alex Canas John Kubler English 115 17 September 2014 y yo! Whe tylpnr Sexual Orientation Vs Religion: A Court Case Between Someone’s Beliefs Against Somebody's Rights In Washington, there is a flower shop run by a white Christian lady who had rejected to do a flower job for a homosexual couple. Her name is Baronelle Stutzman. Being a Christian woman, she believed that a homosexual marriage was something that went against her own beliefs. In the video, which the Alliance Defending Freedom made to inform people about the court case, explained Stutzman was a “kind, gentle soul” and “established a warm relationship with Rob Ingersoll"(1:50). Rob Ingersoll had asked Arlene’s Flower Shop to make flowers for the wedding he was going to be part of. Rob Ingersoll got angry and decided to post on his social media that ‘Arlene’s Flower Shop had denied to make flowers for his wedding just because the wedding was going to be of two homosexuals, After this went viral on social media, Stutzman received hate and death threats regarding what she had done to Ingersoll. An attorney general had seen this post after being viral, Ingersoll had decided to sue Stutzman for denying him the flowers for the marriage. Ingersoll claimed Stutzman was discriminating him because of his sexual orientation, Stutzman claims she has the right to freedom of religion. Who’s right? Recently, Washington has passed the law that all homosexuals could get married and this brought some tension with some religions. So something like Stutzman lawsuit case was bound to happen. What I would recommend the judges to do decide the case would be to go against Stutzman, Now don’t get me wrong. I see both doing wrong but under the law, Stutzman is guilty. Recently, Hobby Lobby had a similar case where they tried to not give contraceptives to theirCanas 2 female workers because it went against their religious beliefs. If Hobby Lobby did not give those contraceptives, given by Obama Care, they would have to pay a major fine every month. Hobby Lobby decided to go to court with Government and the Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby won, What’s the difference between these two cases? Well one financially there isn’t a huge issue. Hobby Lobby would have to end up paying a price if they did not give the contraceptives while Arlene’s Flower Shop would lose a lot of money if she ends up denying people because of their sexual orientation. Plus if Arlene’s Flower Shop was really into her religion, how come she hasn’t discriminated against atheists or other religions? Discrimination is illegal against religion or sexual orientation. Stutzman did wrong by denying making the flowers for Ingersoll. But did Ingersoll do wrong too? Ingersoll decided to post on his Facebook he was not able to buy flowers from Arlene’s Flower Shop because he was having a homosexual marriage. According to Huffingtoon Post, “some people countered that Stutzman doesn't have the right to refuse a gay couple ... others applauded her for sticking up for her values and a few threatened violence against her little shop” (1). If Ingersoll was truly her friend he would have defended Stutzman’s choice and would have asked another flower shop to do the flowers for the wedding. In the end, I still believe Stutzman would lose the case. She is being discrinative towards the homosexual couple which is not allowed in the state of Washington, What Ingersoll did by posting on Facebook about the issue and not defending her was wrong. Even though, Ingersoll has all the right to do this, morally what he did was wrong. I would recommend the judges to side with Ingersoll.