Posted on 07/02/2021 7:43:09 AM PDT by Coronal
The court said it would not take up the florist's appeal, leaving the state court rulings against her intact and again ducking the hot-button issue.
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to wade into the contentious issue of whether businesses have a right to refuse service for same-sex wedding ceremonies despite state laws forbidding them from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
The court dodged the wedding question three years ago in a case involving a Colorado baker who said baking a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage would violate his right of free expression and religious beliefs. The issue came back in an appeal brought by Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington.
The court said Friday that it would not take up her appeal, leaving the state court rulings against her intact and again ducking the hot-button issue. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken the case.
Stutzman refused to provide flowers for the wedding of two longtime male customers in 2013, explaining that as a Southern Baptist, it would violate her religious beliefs and her "relationship with Jesus Christ." Like the Colorado baker, she said her floral arrangements were works of art and that having to create them for same-sex weddings would trample on her freedom of expression.
State courts ruled that she broke a Washington law forbidding businesses to discriminate on the basis of several factors, including sexual orientation. The Washington Supreme Court said providing or refusing to provide flowers for a wedding "does not inherently express a message about that wedding."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
The Supreme Chickens chicken out once again.
Thank goodness for Amy Comey Traitor.
Well, we’ve seen enough of her now. She would have been the fourth justice with Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas needed to hear the case.
Those three stated they would have taken the case. Which is frankly, a public method of calling her out.
(Who knows what Kavanuagh is thinking.)
Expect more of this pro-queer crap from this compromised court.
God, what a disappointment Barrett and Kavanaugh are.
What about the issue of private property and the use thereof? If one owns a business, how much does the public have a say about what the owner can do or not do? If you don’t like the business or what it does, go elsewhere. It is called the free market and genuine private property. This issue is being walked over.
Unbelievable.
This “discrimination” thing has to stop.
What about freedom of association? Oh, this year I see that only applies when commies want to fire and cancel and intimidate conservatives.
What if a gay baker doesn’t want to make a cake for a Catholic confirmation?
What about people asking to make pornographic art on cakes? Or just decoration? Do they have a right to refuse?
This crap is absurd.
Well done Federalist Society. More beltway weaklings for SCOTUS
A Supreme Court of another time in NAACP v. Alabama ruled that freedom of association is part of the First Amendment, saying it was an essential component of the free speech clause. They ruled on this several other times since in favor of freedom of association:
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)
United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217 (1967)
Healey v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 898 (1982)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
Janus v. AFSCME, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
But of course, as with many issues lately before this joke of a court, their best plan of action is to do absolutely nothing. In the meantime — as a result of their fecklessness — our freedoms across the spectrum are becoming eroded.
Yeah their votes are rather glaring.
Exactly.
We are actually in worse shape than it would appear at first glance. Gorsuch is pro-homosexual. I suspect that he wanted to hear the case in order to cement the Court’s pro-homosexual bias.
Only Thomas and Alito stand strong.
Sure, Christian bakeries have to “Bake That Cake”, but when it comes to refusing service to Conservatives, that’s just fine.
They ruled in favor of the baker, not sure why this wouldn’t be the same principle.
And related to your points, there are plenty of wedding vendors who service homosexual weddings, so it’s not as if the dream wedding was damaged because of inability to find someone to take care of the wedding.
So, if an architect builder is requested to construct a house in the shape of a penis, the builder is now legally required to build as requested. This now covers ANY requested design in any profession offering construction ( cakes, homes, landscape, to infinity…..
In his case, they ruled that there was prejudice involved in the issuing of the lower court ruling. They didn’t overturn the law itself. Different story here.
The Supreme Court exists to force the will of the ruling elite on to the general public . It has nothing to do with the law or anything close to rational thought.
If twitter can ban someone for basically no reason then a flower shop can chose to not take someone’s money.
Time to move to a free state.
To describe it mildly.
We pay for the court to decide very close issues. While I am aware the USSC does not provide advisory decisions, I believe it would be an appropriate practice for the Justices should offer at least a brief explanation of just why they will not hear a specific case otherwise properly brought.
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.