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

TalkRadio1

Loves Spam
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Posts
933
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.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...ws-out-case-against-florist-who-refused-to-do
 
SCOTUS orders new look at North Carolina gerrymandering case

The U.S. Supreme Court told a panel of judges to reconsider a ruling that would force North Carolina to redraw its congressional voting map to give Republicans less of a partisan advantage.

The justices ordered a new look based on their week-old ruling in a similar case from Wisconsin. That decision said Democratic voters hadn’t shown they have legal standing to challenge the state’s Republican-drawn assembly map.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...dium=social&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business
 

Ok, I'm not disputing the decision.

But why are they not writing about their practices on Yelp or on their Website? "We don't do floral arrangements for gay weddings, or sell abortion pills due to religious beliefs".
Why hide it from the general public?

Are they expecting the public to walk around from shop to shop or make tens of calls to pharmacies? Just because they are afraid of negative publicity or losing money.
It's both rude and dishonest advertising.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
SCOTUS has six significant cases remaining -- and one big question about its future

Six opinions remain, including on the travel ban, public sector unions and redistricting, and one looming question that could change the future direction of the court: Will there be a retirement?

One of the best parlor games in Washington is the speculation concerning whether Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the critical swing vote on the court, will decide to step down.

Kennedy is 81 years old and has spent some 30 years on the bench. If President Donald Trump were to get another vacancy, he'd undoubtedly choose a younger, more conservative justice who could solidify the court's conservative majority for years to come.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/24/politics/supreme-court-final-week-anthony-kennedy/index.html
 
They're going to keep throwing these out because the fact is a business owner can refuse to serve anyone for any reason they want.

People need to get that through their heads. The answer is to move on to the next business who will most likely be more than happy to take your money, but the professionally offended need to keep wasting court time and tax payers dollars on this.
 
And some twit was bemoaning on how "the left has lost its mind" when you have the highest court in the land being partisan shrills. It's precisely shit like this that has caused civil wars and revolts in past societies. If you poke a person too often, they will eventually react in anger. It's human nature.

Let this be a lesson to idiots who sit their fat asses at home failing to exercise their right to vote in mid term elections, but want to bitch and cry about the "unfairness of the system."

Repugs can't win without trying to rig elections.
 
Furthermore, that florist shop is STUPID. Do they know how petty and lowdown the LGBT community can get when treated unfairly?

They haven't seen nothing yet.
 
They're going to keep throwing these out because the fact is a business owner can refuse to serve anyone for any reason they want.

Ummm...NO.
That is so far from the truth it will take a hundred years for the light from truth to reach it.
 
They're going to keep throwing these out because the fact is a business owner can refuse to serve anyone for any reason they want.

People need to get that through their heads. The answer is to move on to the next business who will most likely be more than happy to take your money, but the professionally offended need to keep wasting court time and tax payers dollars on this.

man thats not really what you just said when the shoe was on the other cake, lol ;)

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=89345978&postcount=159
 
They're going to keep throwing these out because the fact is a business owner can refuse to serve anyone for any reason they want.

People need to get that through their heads. The answer is to move on to the next business who will most likely be more than happy to take your money, but the professionally offended need to keep wasting court time and tax payers dollars on this.

That's not entirely true. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, cannot refuse service on the basis of certain factors. Sexual orientation is not one of these factors, but some states have their own versions of the law that does include it.

And, FWIW, the law was passed with bipartisan support, especially support from GOP members of Congress.
 
ChinoMoreno, you know damn well if Sarah was a Democrat, they would never cape for her and instead, call her Quasimodo. You know how they like to trash Democratic women's looks like the immature, dumbass school boys that they are in mental age.

That witch wasn't discriminated due to her race, gender, or sexual orientation, you know, shit that can't be helped. That is different, but you see all those rethugs hooting and hollering over their darling beauty being denied service, while squirting cum shots over a loving gay couple being denied service.


Repug hypocrisy at its finest.
 
Back
Top