Discrimination: Court's florist ruling too broad

Re: “State court rules against florist in gay wedding case,” (TNT, 2/17).

The state’s application of anti-discrimination laws is far too broad. A private business is not a “public accommodation.” Furthermore, freedom of speech does cover artistic expression, and artistic expression applies as much to custom cakes and floral arrangements as it does to paintings, songs and novels.

The state has no right to tell artists, writers, florists, photographers, musicians, etc. what commissions they should accept or what ideology their products should reflect. When business owners act as private contractors, they have the right to choose projects that are meaningful to them.

The right to a civil marriage cannot be construed as a guarantee of a perfect wedding. A wedding is a social, cultural, and/or religious event based on the personal values and individual tastes of the parties involved. It is unconstitutional to force people to participate in, or create products for, ceremonies, programs or cultural events they don’t believe in.

It is not Barronelle Stutzman who is wasting Washington tax dollars. State leaders are wasting money by trying to micro-manage Washington businesses.

This story was originally published February 28, 2017 at 6:42 PM with the headline "Discrimination: Court's florist ruling too broad."