The Court also rejected Stutzmans arguments that the nondiscrimination law infringed on her free speech because flower arrangements are artistic. Flowers are not inherently expressive, the Court ruled, because the decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding. Stutzman herself had admitted that providing flowers to a wedding between Muslims would not constitute an endorsement for Islam, nor would flowers for an atheist wedding have endorsed atheism.
Her argument that it violated her religious beliefs fared no better. The law protecting against discrimination does not unfairly target religious beliefs, because it applies equally to all people. And her claim that there were other floral shops willing to serve the couple ignores that such protections serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace. Were the Court to carve out a special exception for her beliefs, that purpose would be fatally undermined.
We agree with Ingersoll and Freed, the Court wrote, that this case is no more bout access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.
