Washington Supreme Court upholds ruling against florist who refused same-sex couple

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill



BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 06/06/19 12:22 PM EDT

The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld its previous ruling that a florist discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to sell them flowers for their wedding.

The court found in 2017 that the company, Arlene’s Flowers, had violated state anti-discrimination law by refusing the same-sex couple.

But the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2018, ordered the state’s justices to review whether there was “religious animus” in the decision after the high court narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

The Washington court found that state courts “did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination….by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple, and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution.”

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/447296-washington-supreme-court-upholds-ruling-against-florist-who-refused

[maxsolomon]

1. Well, that sure clears things up.

"Yeah, no. We meant what we said 2 years ago".

[Polybius]

2. "after the high court narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker"

It was a 7-2 decision, it wasn't narrow at all. Ginsburg Sotomayor dissented. I suspect they take this up again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

[NutmegYankee]

3. Narrow in scope. As in it didn't set a broad precedent.