suprmem court declines to rule on florist same sex wedding

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.82b5290450c2


The justices returned to lower courts the case of a Washington state florist who refused to provide a floral arrangement for a longtime customer when he told her it was for his wedding to another man. A unanimous Washington Supreme Court found that the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, a state civil rights law.

interesting. the court refused to hear it, but sent it back to the lower courts for a re-hearing.

So a florist is violated a law but a baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake is not against the law?

So a florist is violated a law but a baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake is not against the law? Originally Posted by pyramider

not quite.


the supreme court didn't rule on that issue with the baker. they just said the anti-religious bias against the baker was inappropriate.

the Supreme Court took the Colorado case because of the religious grounds. they found that the Colorado law against discrimination had in fact discriminated against the baker's religious beliefs. how ironic yeah?

the difference is that no commission in Washington state ruled against this florist. in Colorado it was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

while the ruling was narrow in scope, it was 7-2 in favor. guess who were the dissenters?

Ruthy and the "wise Latina" oh sorry .. that's politically incorrect .. it's now the "wise Latinx"

can't mention gender now can we?


oh and let's not forget the fact that at the time in Colorado, faggot .. er .. gay marriage was not recognized. so the cake clearly could not have been for an actual wedding, just a symbolic one.

not quite.


the supreme court didn't rule on that issue with the baker. they just said the anti-religious bias against the baker was inappropriate. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

They are making hard to keep up without a scorecard.

They are only interest in winners and losers.

Unfortunately, there is no longer room for compromise in the Turd Reich.

IMO they chickened out doing this.. THEY SHOULD have made a ruling, IN FAVOR of both the baker AND florist.

IMO they chickened out doing this.. THEY SHOULD have made a ruling, IN FAVOR of both the baker AND florist. Originally Posted by garhkal

I think what happened here is that Justice Kennedy realized he made a mistake in the obergefell ruling. this maybe why they punted.



that ruling pissed off alot of people.