Several days ago, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a florist was on the wrong side of the law when she refused to sell flower arrangements to a gay couple who were about to get married because of her opposition to gay marriage based on her religious beliefs. Now she might have to leverage all of her possessions to pay court costs.

“What a waste,” I said to a woman who was driving me home from a choir rehearsal. “The gay couple sued this florist even though she had sold them flowers before and had recommended other florists who would be happy to meet their wedding needs.”

“I didn’t know that,” the driver said. “But did you hear about that pediatrician who refused to treat a child because her parents were lesbians?”

“No!” I said. “Clearly wrong, but refusing to treat a sick child is different from not selling floral arrangements.”

“But suppose she was the only florist in the neighborhood.”

“You’re right,” I said. “That would cause undue hardship for the gay couple, but why sue this florist? They were repeat customers, and she did refer them to florists she knew who would be happy to serve them.”

The driver told me about how someone else had suggested that courts weren’t necessary, since those who supported gay marriage could boycott the store.

“Ridiculous,” I said reflexively. I paused. “On the other hand, it’s much easier and less expensive to organize a boycott or other strategies to shame those that discriminate in this age of social media instead of going through the water torture of court proceedings.

“Don’t get me wrong,” I said as we pulled into the driveway of the apartment complex in which I live. “I’m glad the court ruled as it did; for one thing, a ruling in favor of the florist could be used to support those Muslim cabdrivers who refuse to allow my guide dog and me into their cabs because of their religious-based belief that dogs are unclean. But the whole process seems unnecessarily destructive.”

I thought about telling her about how Michael Brown (1), in a Townhall.com column, had compared this ruling to the Christian response to Kristallnacht, the night when Nazis burned synagogues, vandalized Jewish-owned businesses, killing and wounding Jews in the process.

“While I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis,” he wrote, “and I am not comparing the Washington court’s ruling to Kristallnacht, I am comparing the silence of Christians then and now.”

But that rhetorical rabbit hole would have imposed on the driver’s time, and my guide dog and I were both hungry.

As I scooped three handfuls of dog food into a bowl, I wondered if the gay couple, when away from the limelight, regrets filing the lawsuit. Surely, writing a letter to an editor of a local newspaper or organizing a protest through social media would have conveyed their message more efficiently.

I also wonder if the florist privately regrets not accepting the Washington State Attorney General’s offer not to pursue the case if she paid $2,000 in penalties, $1 in fees and costs while agreeing not to discriminate in the future. Indeed, this compromise might have enhanced her ability to communicate her beliefs to a wider audience.

Lawyers representing the florist have promised to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, giving activists on all sides ample opportunities to trumpet their brilliance to anyone who will listen while driving the rest of us further apart. And Supreme Court justices will probably release a closely-divided decision that will resolve nothing.

So everyone loses.

And all because of a bunch of flowers.

(1) https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2017/02/17/shame-on-the-silent-christian-leaders-who-refuse-to-stand-against-government-tyranny-n2287063