Supreme Court throws out case against florist who refused to do arrangement for gay wedding

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY LYDIA WHEELER - 06/25/18 09:45 AM EDT

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling that found a Washington state florist had intentionally discriminated against a same-sex couple for refusing to make flower arrangements for their wedding.

The justices vacated the ruling and sent the case back down to the Washington Supreme Court, giving the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, another chance to make her case in light of their decision earlier this month in favor of a Colorado baker, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage

This florist's case, known as Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington, mirrors that Colorado case in which the baker argued his cakes are an artistic expression of speech and religion that is protected by the First Amendment.

But the court sided with the baker on narrow grounds, ruling that he had been treated unfairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it first heard the case.

Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393922-supreme-court-throws-out-case-against-florist-who-refused-to-do

[spooky3]

1. Please see this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10784821

[DonViejo]

4. Why? It's the same article except in the General Discussions Forum

[spooky3]

6. Because yours is a duplicate, and the LBN rules

Say “no duplicates”? It’s also news that is several hours old, though maybe that’s still considered LBN.

[DonViejo]

7. No duplicates in the LBN Forum, the other article is not in the LBN Forum. The article is less than

12 hours old, fully meeting the requirements for posting in the LBN Forum. But, if you think it's a violation of the SOP, by all means, file an alert.

[spooky3]

8. OK, thx.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. This is a slippery moral slope of capriciousness

I have moral objections to

everything Republican
unmufflered throaty engines
local taxes
income taxes
doctor's bills
wine without flavor
etc
etc
etc

If everyone starts objecting at everything on religious grounds, the world will come to a stop

This is the logical playout of the Hyde amendment. "I object, therefore you cannot use my tax dollars for ...."

[jayschool2013]

9. The Christian States of America

BTW, awesome "theology." If you found a religion on those values, I'm in.

As for the "new" CSA, it's not too big of a leap to imagine large swaths of the U.S. where you can't access certain services or fully express your inherent rights because of where you live.

We already see that with women's reproductive services in certain rural parts of the American South and West. But if these radical Christianists have their way, second-class citizenry for millions of our fellow Americans is a certainty in places where finding a "friendly" pharmacist, flower arranger, baker, or clerk of the court will be nearly impossible.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Second time in the same session that the USSC remanded for this reason:

The Civil Rights Commission was doing its job.

[leftynyc]

5. Hope all the Stein voters

and all the ones that had hissy fits and stayed home are happy now. My loathing of them is matched with my loathing for republicans.

[bitterross]

10. What a freaking crock of crap. Just a back door way to rule for religion.

This just means that any mention of the evil, unsavory things religious people have done in the past during any kind of hearing on this topic will now be deemed to have treated religion unfairly.

With this ruling they have just explicitly told every baker and florist how to beat the system.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Shocker.

I am waiting for my marriage to be revoked. It's coming.

[olegramps]

12. This is softening up the opposition to declare the Civil Rights Legislation unconstitutional.

Segregated restrooms, drinking fountains, Whites Only, separate but not equal education are within their only a justice away. They have been at this for fifty years and victory is within their grasp.