Fox & Friends Weekend co-host says florist who discriminated against LGBTQ couple “reflected the definition of tolerance”
Tomorrow, ADF will argue for an employer's right to fire LGBTQ employees for their sexual orientation or gender identity
Written by Kayla Gogarty
Published
In an interview with extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) about the group’s defense of a business for discriminating against LGTBQ customers, Fox & Friends Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth praised ADF's attorney and client for “raising this issue to the national level” and told the anti-LGBTQ business owner, “One could argue you reflected the definition of tolerance.”
The segment was the latest example of Fox News giving ADF a platform to discuss its anti-LGBTQ cases and policy positions. In 2019, ADF discussed at least eight of its cases during at least 11 segments on Fox News.
On September 11, ADF filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Barronelle Stutzman and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, asking for review of the Washington Supreme Court’s decision that Stutzman’s refusal to sell flowers to a gay couple violated that state’s nondiscrimination law. During an October 6 segment on Fox & Friends Weekend, ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner called on the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the case, saying, “A win for Barronelle is a win for everyone. … It’s about tolerance being a two-way street.”
Citation From the October 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Weekend
PETE HEGSETH (CO-HOST): Why are you willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court?
BARRONELLE STUTZMAN (OWNER OF ARLENE’S FLOWERS): Well, I serve everyone and all walks of life. And I had the privilege of serving Rob, longtime customer for almost 10 years, for birthdays and anniversaries, custom-making arrangements for him. But when he came in to talk to me about his wedding, I just simply put my hands on his and told him I could not do it because my relationship with Jesus Christ. He said he understood. We talked about how he got engaged. We talked about his mom walking him down the aisle. I suggested other florists. We hugged each other and Rob left. Without any complaint from Rob or Curt, the attorney general from the state of Washington sued me personally and corporately simply because I have a different viewpoint on marriage.
HEGSETH: So, I -- one could argue you reflected the definition of tolerance, which is “hey, we don't agree, but I love you, and you've got other options and I support that.” Yet the state has come down -- now the state was overturned by the Supreme Court, but the state’s coming back at you again.
STUTZMAN: Correct.
HEGSETH: Kristen, as the attorney in this, where does the law stand?
KRISTEN WAGGONER (ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM ATTORNEY): Well in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the government can't express hostility towards people of faith. We now need it to weigh in on the broader principle to say it can't force creative professionals to create art or to have to participate in religious ceremonies. We have clients right now that are facing jail time. [Masterpiece Cakeshop owner] Jack Phillips is in his third round of litigation. And Barronelle is basically faced with losing all she owns unless the Supreme Court weighs in on this case.
…
HEGSETH: I mean that was sort of the point, right, Kristen, of our American experiment -- religious expression and freedom? And in this case, the state is coercing individual private businesses into a particular position.
WAGGONER: Yes. I mean a win for Barronelle is a win for everyone. If you think about it, it protects an atheist musician from having to perform at an Easter service or a Democrat speechwriter from having to write for a Republican. It's about tolerance being a two-way street.
HEGSETH: Tolerance being a two-way street. Barronelle, are you confident you’ll win this case?
STUTZMAN: We're hoping the Supreme Court will see how important this is. You know, and if Rob came into my shop tomorrow, I would hug him, catch up on his life, and wait on him for another 10 years.
HEGSETH: Well said. Well, thank you both so much for joining us this morning -- and raising this issue to the national level, cause folks sometimes don't realize the small ways in which your liberty is infringed upon. You know about it in a big way. Thank you both so much.
ADF has a history of fighting LGBTQ protections in the courts and attempting to sway policies at all levels of government. In fact, ADF will present oral arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8 in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC & Aimee Stephens, a case in which ADF represents an employer that fired a transgender woman for her gender identity. The case will be heard alongside two similar cases involving employment discimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
ADF has also recently worked on several other cases attacking LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections:
-
Doe v. Boyertown Area School District: On May 28, the Supreme Court declined to hear ADF’s case against a Pennsylvania school district’s trans-inclusive policies that permit students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity, allowing the policy to remain in place.
-
Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey: On August 23, the federal Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that two filmmakers who own Telescope Media Group could proceed with their challenge of Minnesota’s nondiscrimination law. The owners, Carl and Angel Larsen, argue that they should be allowed to deny wedding video services to same-sex couples.
-
Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix: On September 16, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned multiple lower court decisions and ruled that a Phoenix art studio that ADF represented did not have to make custom invitations for a same-sex wedding. However, the court did not strike down Phoenix’s nondiscrimination law.
-
Title IX sex-discrimination complaint: ADF filed a complaint on June 17 with the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of three students arguing against a trans-inclusive athletics policy. On August 7, the Education Department agreed to investigate the complaint.