Posted on 06/25/2018 3:44:47 PM PDT by SMGFan
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted the appeal of a Washington state florist who was fined after she refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding, and the court erased a lower court ruling against her.
The move came after the court gave a narrow victory on June 4 to a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. That decision affected only him and offered no guidance on how to referee similar disputes between same-sex couples and business owners who cite religious objections in refusing to serve them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Hmmm, seems to be somewhat different situations. The baker was asked to put something written on the wedding cake that went against his beliefs. Still offered to make them a wedding cake without the wording.
Not sure selling someone flowers you disagree with is allowed, although the Red Hen case may make it so.
I don’t think it was “refused to sell flowers.”
I think it was “refused to provide floral arrangements.”
SCOTUS may have once again skirted taking this issue (which is really a slavery issue) but MUI there are several similar cases in the pipeline.
They can’t avoid it with purely technical rulings forever.
Hilarious.
The Fake News NEVER SEES precedent when a conservative wins at SCOTUS. When a liberal wins, the Fake News says the ruling APPLIES EVERYWHERE IMMEDIATELY.
The Florist was happy to sell flowers to anyone - just not making a Floral arrangement for a cursed event. I.e., if you believe that such an event is an abomination and is a compact between two parties to march into hell, you would do well to refuse to participate in such an event.
This is the first time in my life that I have heard about a florist who is not a gay man.
Maybe SCOTUS can cite restaurants that refuse to serve people for their beliefs and politics.
Oh come on people, do you guys realize how difficult it is to find a gay florist?/s
The first amendment freedom to assemble peacefully clause enables citizens to either assemble or not assemble AS THEY SO CHOOSE. One of the reasons people assemble is to conduct business. Private businesses have the right to buy, sell and trade with any other citizen as long as the product is legal.
Let's look at the ultimate....I am a friend of both John and Jerry. I receive a wedding invitation. I respond with a note saying I will not attend because I do not believe in gay marriages.
Can they sue me?? Of course not. They can not FORCE anyone to participate.
It would be awesome if the SC got rid of all these bullshit public accommodation laws. Unless the business is in some way publicly funded or uses public facilities (not including city buys product or public utilities, I mean gets financial assistance from gov or rents space in governed building), any private business should be allowed to serve or not serve anyone they want. Period.
I live in California.
I assume this won’t go in front of SCOTUS until next year. Maybe SCOTUS assumes a huge Red Wave in November, so the timing is right to reaffirm the 1st amendment.
There is no Red Hen case.
She wasn’t just “selling flowers.” She was asked to make custom flower arrangements to please unique customers, using her talents and experience, for a gay wedding. It’s no different from the baker being asked to create a custom, unique wedding cake, as opposed to ready-made assembly-line cakes in a display case.
And the strange part of the Colorado baker case was gay marriage was not yet legal in Colorado IIRC.
DK
In small towns, maybe. In large cities, a great percentage of florists are gay males. Same with paid church organists and choir directors. Small town, women. Big city, gay males. Hairdressers: small town...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.