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.

We've had our cake at GetReligion — or at least critiqued plenty of coverage of it. Here, here, here and here, for example.

Perhaps it's time we enjoyed some culture-war flowers, too.

The Los Angeles Times reported this week on a judge's ruling in yet another case pitting gay rights vs. religious freedom.

The top of the Times' story:

A Washington state florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, citing religious reasons, violated consumer protection laws, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The lawsuit, filed in 2013 by Washington Atty. Gen. Bob Ferguson, centered on Arlene’s Flowers, a shop in eastern Washington that refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, with the owner telling a longtime customer that it was “because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.”

The attorney general argued that the business had violated state consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Washington since 2012.

In a 60-page opinion, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander C. Ekstrom said Barronelle Stutzman’s actions became illegal the day voters passed a referendum legalizing gay marriage.

Stutzman had argued that the tenets of her "Southern Baptist tradition" precluded her from arranging flowers for same-sex weddings, or to allow any of her employees to do so.

Two weeks ago, I dinged the Los Angeles newspaper for the way it framed a story that asked — prepare for a loaded question — "Should religion give businesses an excuse to not serve gay couples?"

But I liked this latest story.

On that florist who refused flowers for gay wedding, Indy Star misses chance to provide real insight

Surprise, a pretty bouquet! Los Angeles Times covers both sides of same-sex wedding flowers lawsuit