Sue Lani Madsen: Richland florist ruling doesn’t respect differences

Does being legal make it right?

That’s a typical ethical dilemma we’re discussing this semester in the Ethics and Professional Practice class in the School of Design & Construction at Washington State University. I’m teaching from a long-established syllabus.

Coincidentally, the first case study in January was reminiscent of the recently decided case of State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman. And while the Washington Supreme Court has decided what is legal, it isn’t right.

The class is working with excerpts from a 1980s textbook, and sometimes the hypothetical case studies require context to make sense to millennials. The first ethical dilemma was rooted in the politics of the Vietnam War. Three young Quaker men finishing architecture school faced being drafted into a hot war. They were committed pacifists, and sought conscientious objector status or fled to Canada. After the war they formed a design firm and committed to never do work for the military.

After several years of success, work slowed down and another old friend asked them to provide design work for a series of military projects ranging from a new barracks to a base chapel. Do they keep their commitment to pacifism and their Quaker faith? Do they turn down all work on military bases because of their creed and refer their old friend to another design firm for the services? Do they lie about their workload?

The instinctive reaction of many students was that if it meant that much to the Quakers, they should reject all military work even if it meant flipping burgers to make ends meet until the market picked up. Others thought they should take the work because it’s only business, and they had an obligation to protect their employees’ jobs. Nobody suggested the government should step in and demand the Quakers work on military projects.

The only difference between the situation faced by the three hypothetical Quakers and Stutzman is whether their clients are considered part of a “protected class.”

Stutzman’s clients were gay. She considered them to be friends and the feeling had been mutual. When the two men who had been longtime customers decided to marry, she declined to provide services for their same-sex wedding and referred them to other florists. Like many Christians, Muslims and Jews, she believes marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman, and on that basis she wished to be excused from participating. She hoped her old friends would understand.

Then Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson decided to make an example of her, because heaven forbid people with different creeds should politely accommodate each other.

If the old friend seeking to hire the hypothetical Quakers were part of a protected class, would it be appropriate for Ferguson to step in and sue the Quakers to provide services? And just what is a protected class anyway?

The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) defines a protected class using general characteristics. We all have a “race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex [… and] military status.” As social justice warriors are fond of chanting, civil rights are equal rights, not special rights. They apply to everyone.

And everyone has a personal creed, whether faith-based or not, a set of fundamental beliefs that guide their actions. Living together in community means respecting differences, not using the legal system to force others into line except in the most extreme circumstances. This was not an extreme circumstance. This was not about discriminating against individuals because of who they are, it was about not participating in an event they were planning.

Ferguson, the AG, said his goal is to stop discrimination in the marketplace. So what about our three Quakers? If they offer design services for dormitories and chapels to other clients in the marketplace, he would apparently insist they provide the same services to the military. Equal treatment. Their pacifist creed doesn’t count. If they want to engage in the marketplace, they must be willing to serve all clients who come to them.

The case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. May the court seek both justice and mercy.