The Supreme Court on Friday announced it would not hear a case involving a florist who refused to serve a gay couple.

The high court's decision leaves in place state rulings against the florist.

Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers & Gifts in Richland, Washington, in 2013 refused to serve Robert Ingersoll when he attempted to purchase flowers for his upcoming marriage to now-husband Curt Freed. Stutzman said that providing the service would be a violation of her faith.

Stutzman in 2015 was found guilty of violating the state's anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, plus $1 for court costs and fees. Washington's highest court twice upheld the ruling.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest LGBT rights advocate, applauded the high court's decision.

“By denying certiorari in Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., the Supreme Court has once again said that critical nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people are legally enforceable and has set a strong and definitive precedent,” HRC President Alphonso David said in a statement.

“Now, we need these protections for the LGBTQ community, and all people, across the country, and in every walk of life. That’s why we need to double-down on our efforts to pass The Equality Act. The Court has validated nondiscrimination protections, now Congress must follow suit,” he said, referring to the LGBT protections bill stuck in the Senate.

Stutzman is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian conservative legal group opposed to LGBT rights. ADF lawyers argued that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding is an endorsement of such unions.

Plaintiffs in the case, Ingersoll and Freed, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“Planning a wedding was a joyful time for Rob and Curt until they were refused service at their local flower shop,” Ria Tabacco Mar, an ACLU lawyer representing the couple said in a statement. “No one should walk into a store and have to wonder whether they will be turned away because of who they are. Preventing that kind of humiliation and hurt is exactly why we have nondiscrimination laws.”