Judge Rules Owner of Arlene’s Flowers Can Be Sued, Besides Business

Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom has tossed a motion by Barronelle Stutzman's attorneys that she personally be dropped from Attorney General's case against her business Arlene's Flowers.

There are two lawsuits against Stutzman and Arlene's Flowers. One from the ACLU and a same-sex couple after she declined to provide floral services for a same-sex wedding, citing her religious beliefs. Another from the Attorney General himself.

Her attorneys argued in the motion that including her in the lawsuit was unprecedented and unjust. On Wednesday, Ekstrom, citing what he said were statutes in the state's Consumer Protection Act, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, said they both support individual and corporate liability.

This is important because if Attorney General Bob Ferguson wins the trial, which is slated to start next spring, he could then go after Stutzman personally for attorney fees, costs and other related expenses. As the Family Policy Institute of Washington reported in December, refusing to allow only her business to "go on trial," Ferguson could financially destroy her. Attorney fees in such cases often run into the hundreds of thousands, and Ferguson has assigned his biggest guns to this case.

The FPI, who have been helping organize legal assistance for the owner, believes Stutzman is being used as a "test" case, and the state seeks to make an example of her, to discourage other businesses from "discriminating."

There are no guarantee Ferguson will do this, but in other cases won by the attorney general office, when parties have been sued there have been court costs involved. Examples include his pursuit of owners of derelict ships who've essentially abandoned them in Washington waterways.

Critics of Ferguson say he's using it to further his career; supporters of the suit say owners shouldn't be allowed to "hide" behind their businesses.

Ekstrom also tossed out a claim by the ACLU that Stutzman "aided" her business in allegedly violating the state's anti-discrimination law. Other motions put forth by the prosecution and defense have yet to be decided upon by Ekstrom.

The revised discrimination law, modified to include same-sex couples, went into effect nearly 8 years ago.  This is the first such case to be tried in the state under this law.