The Washington Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear the case of a Christian florist who was found by a court in February last year to have violated the state's anti-discrimination law for refusing to sell flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding.

Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, is seeking to reverse the lower court's decision.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a brief with the state Supreme Court last month to challenge the ruling and the state and the American Civil Liberties Union's arguments about the case.

According to the ADF, the lower court ordered Stutzman to pay penalties and attorney's fees for refusing to use her artistic abilities to make flower arrangements for long-time customer Rob Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed.

Ingersoll has been Stutzman's client and a friend for nearly 10 years. Ingersoll approached Stutzman on March 1, 2013 to seek her services in arranging flowers for his wedding.

Stutzman instead referred Ingersoll to other florists in the area who could provide such services.

"Barronelle and many others like her around the country have been willing to serve any and all customers, but they are understandably not willing to promote any and all messages," said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner. "We hope the Washington Supreme Court will affirm the broad protections that both the U.S. Constitution and the Washington Constitution afford to freedom of speech and conscience."

ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said, "No one should face personal and professional ruin simply for exercising these foundational freedoms. Americans clearly oppose unjust government actions that force people to create expression against their will."

In its brief, the ADF said, "The case boils down to this question: Is there room in our tolerant, diverse, and freedom-loving society for people with different views about the nature of marriage to establish their 'religious (or nonreligious) self-definition in the political, civic and economic life of our larger community...?' The trial court's and [the state's and the ACLU's] answer is 'no.'"

It added, "This is contrary to the best of our historical and constitutional traditions, which mandate that citizens who hold non-majoritarian views be given room to express them and not be coerced, punished and marginalised through force of law."

The ADF said the trial court, the state and ACLU's opinion "that there can never be a free speech exception to public accommodation laws—endangers everyone."

In an op-ed piece in The Seattle Times, Stutzman wrote, "This case is not about refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation or dislike for another person who is preciously created in God's image. I sold flowers to Rob for years. I helped him find someone else to design his wedding arrangements. I count him as a friend."

She added, "I want to believe that a state as diverse as Washington, with our long commitment to personal and religious freedoms, would be as willing to honour my right to make those kinds of choices as it is to honour Rob's right to make his."