Hey Indianapolis Star, the florist has a name — and that's an important point you missed.
In an in-depth story this week, the Star attempted to explain "What the 'religious liberty' law really means for Indiana."
Scare quotes aside, the story actually wasn't bad, particularly for a newspaper that showed its Poker hand Tuesday with a front-page editorial voicing its displeasure with the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In the "what it means" story, the Star looks to the Pacific Northwest for an example of a religious freedom case:
Consider this case from Washington state.
A florist, citing her relationship with Jesus Christ, refused to sell flowers for a gay couple's wedding. A court recently ruled, even when weighing her religious convictions, that she violated local nondiscrimination laws. News reports say she turned down a settlement offer and continues to appeal her case.
The florist declined to arrange the flowers, and so in some sense this confirms the fears of religious freedom law opponents that a door has been opened to discrimination. But she lost in court, and so this backs the supporters who say RFRA doesn't usurp local nondiscrimination laws.
The problem with that quick rundown of the Washington state case? It fails to provide any true context or insight.