United States Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal From Florist Who Refused Service Over Same-Sex Wedding

[DarthOne]

is hidden behind a paywall, so have an archived link!

https://archive.fo/a3aWb#selection-1025.0-1025.92

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear an appeal over a florist’s refusal to offer service for a wedding of a same-sex couple, allowing a state court’s ruling that the shop engaged in unlawful discrimination.

The court ruled 6-3 in declining to take it up. At least four justices need to vote in favor of granting a petition to authorize a review of a case. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas voted in favor (pdf) of taking the case.

The Supreme Court didn’t provide an explanation for its denial to hear the case, stating, in part: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.”
In June, the Washington state Supreme Court issued a ruling against the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, who refused to create a floral arrangement for Robert Ingersoll’s same-sex wedding in 2013.

The state court had “branded Barronelle a ‘discriminator’ and ordered her to attend, facilitate, and create custom floral art celebrating all marriages or none,” Kristen Waggoner, an attorney for Stutzman, had written to the justices.

Stutzman had argued that her floral arrangements were effectively speech that is protected under the First Amendment.

“Like all artists, Barronelle speaks through her custom creations,” Waggoner wrote to the high court and argued that the floral arrangements as “multimedia works incorporating flowers.”

The Epoch Times has contacted Barronelle’s lawyers for comment following the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case.

However, lawyers for Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who filed the lawsuit, claimed that Stutzman violated anti-discrimination laws for refusing to make the floral arrangement for the wedding. The attorneys further stipulated that Stutzman is essentially trying to seek a “floral art” exemption to anti-discrimination laws.

“The notion of a First Amendment right to discriminate has been rejected as often as it has been raised,” wrote Ria Tabacco Mar, a lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, to the Supreme Court.

Several weeks ago, the court issued a unanimous ruling that sided with a Catholic adoption agency in Philadelphia that says religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.

“It is plain that the City’s actions have burdened CSS’s [Catholic Social Services’] religious exercise by putting it to the choice of curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that ruling. The agency, he added, “seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”

No one should be compelled by the govt to do business if they don’t want to. If LGBT people want to get married, just they should just go and buy it somewhere else!

Of course, they know they can... but seem to do this anyway. I'm all but sure, with everything else I've seen and read in the past few years, that there are some LGBT people actively seeking these lawsuits for the sake of getting laws passed/changed.

But Twitter is allowed to discriminate however they want because muh private business. Of course, we all know the real reason is that they have the 'right' political opinions and a ton of money to throw around.

 

[King Arts]

So it seems that Kavanaugh is useless after all. Maybe it would have been better to allow him to have his career ruined over the rape of the woman he commited. Only 2 or 3 of the conservative justices are actually worth something the others are worthless. What is Trump doing picking idiots to surround himself with.

 

[Abhorsen]

So it seems that Kavanaugh is useless after all. Maybe it would have been better to allow him to have his career ruined over the rape of the woman he commited. Only 2 or 3 of the conservative justices are actually worth something the others are worthless. What is Trump doing picking idiots to surround himself with.

Although I agree that Kavanagh is the worst of the Trump appointees, this isn't necessarily a sign of him being bad. This wasn't a ruling, this was a denial of cert. There are tons of reasons for justices not to take up cases even for things they want to overturn.

A small list: wanting to hold off on major changes until it's less courtpacky, being unsure about a majority, being sure about a majority but doubt that a broad ruling will happen, resulting in wasted time, an unsympathetic case, a case that could be mooted or decided on a different question instead of what you want to ask, just being too busy, etc.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

So it seems that Kavanaugh is useless after all. Maybe it would have been better to allow him to have his career ruined over the rape of the woman he commited. Only 2 or 3 of the conservative justices are actually worth something the others are worthless. What is Trump doing picking idiots to surround himself with.

Now hold on. Kavanaugh shouldn't have gone down for Rape because there was no decent amount of proof that Kavanaugh did it. It shouldn't have anything to do with his politics or his political usefulness. Good grief this is not star wars and we are not Darth Vader. if that's all that matters to you, then your efforts would be better spent brow nosing to the left.

 

[Captain X]

I would say my feeling is more along the lines of bitterness over how so many of us rallied behind him over this injustice that was done to him, yet he does nothing in return to address the injustices done to others, such as this case.

 

[The Original Sixth]

is hidden behind a paywall, so have an archived link!

https://archive.fo/a3aWb#selection-1025.0-1025.92

No one should be compelled by the govt to do business if they don’t want to. If LGBT people want to get married, just they should just go and buy it somewhere else!

Of course, they know they can... but seem to do this anyway. I'm all but sure, with everything else I've seen and read in the past few years, that there are some LGBT people actively seeking these lawsuits for the sake of getting laws passed/changed.

But Twitter is allowed to discriminate however they want because muh private business. Of course, we all know the real reason is that they have the 'right' political opinions and a ton of money to throw around.

I'm no lawyer... but it's probably the legal position that her floral arrangements are art. Which is probably bullshit. Now, if she starts presenting herself as a floral artist, then she might get away with it, but if she's only doing it for legal convenience, I don't think the judges want to touch the case. Because once you make the argument that floral arrangements are art, then food can be art, then products can be art...and suddenly instead of just setting the LGBT groups back, you instead allow for racial prejudice and such under the same rationality.

I absolutely believe that LGBT groups are targeting businesses though. I'm not sure if it's because individual leftist couples are greedy or spiteful--or they're simply motivated by some political statement.

 

[Vaermina]

I absolutely believe that LGBT groups are targeting businesses though. I'm not sure if it's because individual leftist couples are greedy or spiteful--or they're simply motivated by some political statement.

They have directly stated they are targeting businesses to make a political statement.

 

[S'task]

Because once you make the argument that floral arrangements are art, then food can be art, then products can be art...and suddenly instead of just setting the LGBT groups back, you instead allow for racial prejudice and such under the same rationality.

OK... and?

Freedom of Association and Speech SHOULD be considered more important rights than "feeling accepted".

This is been one of the long, LONG issues underlying Civil Rights Law in the US, that it does, in fact, compel Association between people who may not want to. In fact, one can make a pretty decent case that all Civil Rights Law did was inverse the prior violation of Freedom of Association. Rather than forcing people to not associate when they may have wanted to (which is functionally what Jim Crow laws did), it instead forces people TO associate when they did not want to.

In both cases, the fundamental Right of Association is violated, just one in a way that prevents Association and another in a way that mandates it...

 

[King Arts]

Now hold on. Kavanaugh shouldn't have gone down for Rape because there was no decent amount of proof that Kavanaugh did it. It shouldn't have anything to do with his politics or his political usefulness. Good grief this is not star wars and we are not Darth Vader. if that's all that matters to you, then your efforts would be better spent brow nosing to the left.

I disagree. Not about Kavanaugh being innocent he probably was. But I do think we should have politics in justice. If someone of an opposing political party is in court we should ramp up the charges if we can just like the Soviets used to do also add on charges by making our political rivals to be rapists and depraved. Whether it’s true or not is not important. They are the enemy and would do the same, when the stakes are so big integrity needs to go by the way side.

I'm now lawyer... but it's probably the legal position that her floral arrangements are art. Which is probably bullshit. Now, if she starts presenting herself as a floral artist, then she might get away with it, but if she's only doing it for legal convenience, I don't think the judges want to touch the case. Because once you make the argument that floral arrangements are art, then food can be art, then products can be art...and suddenly instead of just setting the LGBT groups back, you instead allow for racial prejudice and such under the same rationality.

I absolutely believe that LGBT groups are targeting businesses though. I'm not sure if it's because individual leftist couples are greedy or spiteful--or they're simply motivated by some political statement.

Yes allow food makers to call themselves artists. So what if it allows refusal of service on race in the modern day it would be rare, and even back in the 60s the problem was not individual stores refusing blacks, it was Jim Crow laws that mandated business to be racist. The civil rights act went to far. If you own your own business and don’t want to do business with someone then fine.

 

[The Original Sixth]

OK... and?

Freedom of Association and Speech SHOULD be considered more important rights than "feeling accepted".

I don't disagree, but I'm saying that based off her argument and what judging in her favor could undo, they may be skittish. Especially when her argument is probably composed of legal convenience. From what I've seen, judges really don't like that.

This is been one of the long, LONG issues underlying Civil Rights Law in the US, that it does, in fact, compel Association between people who may not want to. In fact, one can make a pretty decent case that all Civil Rights Law did was inverse the prior violation of Freedom of Association. Rather than forcing people to not associate when they may have wanted to (which is functionally what Jim Crow laws did), it instead forces people TO associate when they did not want to.

In both cases, the fundamental Right of Association is violated, just one in a way that prevents Association and another in a way that mandates it...

Again, it's one thing if she wants to go before the court and argue that she has a right to association. Because that is the actual issue at debate. It's an entirely different thing if she tries to hide it behind freedom of speech and pass it by the court. The former is probably not going to work (though it should), while the latter is very much not going to work. Courts don't like it when you try and play a "gotcha" with the law.

 

[Terthna]

Although I agree that Kavanagh is the worst of the Trump appointees, this isn't necessarily a sign of him being bad. This wasn't a ruling, this was a denial of cert. There are tons of reasons for justices not to take up cases even for things they want to overturn.

A small list: wanting to hold off on major changes until it's less courtpacky, being unsure about a majority, being sure about a majority but doubt that a broad ruling will happen, resulting in wasted time, an unsympathetic case, a case that could be mooted or decided on a different question instead of what you want to ask, just being too busy, etc.

It's another one to add to the pile though; and said pile is becoming impossible to ignore.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'm now lawyer... but it's probably the legal position that her floral arrangements are art. Which is probably bullshit. Now, if she starts presenting herself as a floral artist, then she might get away with it, but if she's only doing it for legal convenience, I don't think the judges want to touch the case. Because once you make the argument that floral arrangements are art, then food can be art, then products can be art...and suddenly instead of just setting the LGBT groups back, you instead allow for racial prejudice and such under the same rationality.

I absolutely believe that LGBT groups are targeting businesses though. I'm not sure if it's because individual leftist couples are greedy or spiteful--or they're simply motivated by some political statement.

Yeah, this is the difference between the Masterpiece argument and this one. Masterpiece was an honest example where it was clear that the issue was compelling speech, as he was fine baking them a cake, just not a wedding cake, and it was clear he viewed himself as an artist. But flowers being art is much more iffy.

It's another one to add to the pile though; and said pile is becoming impossible to ignore.

No, it isn't a thing to add to the pile. There are many good reasons not to do this. And there's no need to ignore the pile either, it's already pretty massive. He's not a full Roberts, but he basically is. One example was him on eviction moratoriums:

His finding: Oh, they're illegal, but we'll let them stand for another month.

It plainly shows he doesn't care what the law demands, he cares about politics. Now contrast this with Gorsuch, who only cares what the law demands, fuck politics.

In order of good justices vs. bad, I'd rank them as follows (with Barrett left out, though far above

1. Gorsuch (he gets this by virtue of his writing)
2. Thomas
3. Kagan (I disagree, but she is good (see her dissent on thursday on the Arizona Voting rights case, damn good writing). She's also really effective at cobbling together majorities.)
4. Breyer (He doesn't play politics, so he's above the politicians. I don't like that he thinks everything's a balancing test, but he has a view of the constitution and he sticks too it. It's not an originalist view, but it's not a political view either)
5. Barrett? (IDK where she might end up, but this is as low as she goes. Probably above).
6. Kavanaugh (he gets here for playing politics. He seems to swing between doing politics and being a judge)
7. Roberts (blatantly playing politics trying to keep the court from being views as extreme, which makes it seem all the more as a political entity pretending to be nonpartisan rather than the non-partisan thing it mostly is)
8. Sotomayor (Barely not just a politician)
9. Alito (Is just a politician in robes)

 

[Megadeath]

I disagree. Not about Kavanaugh being innocent he probably was. But I do think we should have politics in justice. If someone of an opposing political party is in court we should ramp up the charges if we can just like the Soviets used to do also add on charges by making our political rivals to be rapists and depraved. Whether it’s true or not is not important. They are the enemy and would do the same, when the stakes are so big integrity needs to go by the way side.


Yes allow food makers to call themselves artists. So what if it allows refusal of service on race in the modern day it would be rare, and even back in the 60s the problem was not individual stores refusing blacks, it was Jim Crow laws that mandated business to be racist. The civil rights act went to far. If you own your own business and don’t want to do business with someone then fine.

"The American right should do more to model itself on the soviet union." Now that's a hot take. And a disgusting one. And that's even before we get to your opinion that racist discrimination is okay. Just wow.

 

[King Arts]

"The American right should do more to model itself on the soviet union." Now that's a hot take. And a disgusting one. And that's even before we get to your opinion that racist discrimination is okay. Just wow.

Nice way to take someone’s quote out of context when you disagree with them. Maybe you’ll make a fine spacebattles liberal one day.

I did not say racist discrimination is ok. Like it’s morally good. I said it should be allowed. If you don’t like me you should not have to spend time with me being my plumber or Gardner or baker or whatever no matter what the reason is.

 

[Megadeath]

Nice way to take someone’s quote out of context when you disagree with them. Maybe you’ll make a fine spacebattles liberal one day.

I did not say racist discrimination is ok. Like it’s morally good. I said it should be allowed. If you don’t like me you should not have to spend time with me being my plumber or Gardner or baker or whatever no matter what the reason is.

I dunno about you, but where I'm from okay doesn't mean good, it means fine, acceptable. Which is exactly how you're describing racist discrimination. How exactly am I taking anything you said out of context?

 

[King Arts]

I dunno about you, but where I'm from okay doesn't mean good, it means fine, acceptable. Which is exactly how you're describing racist discrimination. How exactly am I taking anything you said out of context?

Hey is it ok if I do this and you say yes that means more than you are allowed to do it it’s moral permission to do it.
For example in real life I could use a racial slur against you if I want, and I would not be arrested or legally punished. Does that mean it’s ok? Use your head the answer is no.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I disagree. Not about Kavanaugh being innocent he probably was. But I do think we should have politics in justice. If someone of an opposing political party is in court we should ramp up the charges if we can just like the Soviets used to do also add on charges by making our political rivals to be rapists and depraved. Whether it’s true or not is not important. They are the enemy and would do the same, when the stakes are so big integrity needs to go by the way side.

Then just admit you think Antifa is right and be done with it man. Stop trying to shroud yourself moralality. it's ok to admit you are a sith and say "if you are not with me then you are my enemy."

 

[Megadeath]

Hey is it ok if I do this and you say yes that means more than you are allowed to do it it’s moral permission to do it.
For example in real life I could use a racial slur against you if I want, and I would not be arrested or legally punished. Does that mean it’s ok? Use your head the answer is no.

The exact phrasing and usage determines the connotations, more than the word itself. If you took it in a way other than I intended... Well, I feel no compunction to apologise to someone with such disgusting views, so I guess I hope I've made it generally clear to other people what I meant and I'll leave it at that.

 

[King Arts]

Then just admit you think Antifa is right and be done with it man. Stop trying to shroud yourself moralality. it's ok to admit you are a sith and saY "if you are not with me then you are my enemy."

I hate ANTIFA because a whole host of reasons one of them that they cause chaos and make society unworkable. With them it’s constant riots, and performative wokeness trying to get everyone to believe what they want, people aren’t allowed to keep their head down and just focus on their life. And very funny comparing me to a Sith. I’m not that extreme with me it’s not those who aren’t with me are against me. It’s simply those with me, then those who aren’t with me but are willing to keep their head down and obey, and then the final group that are the enemy. It’s only the last group that gets purged or sent to a labor camp. With me it’s possible to shut up and keep your head down and obey and there would be no problem.

The exact phrasing and usage determines the connotations, more than the word itself. If you took it in a way other than I intended... Well, I feel no compunction to apologise to someone with such disgusting views, so I guess I hope I've made it generally clear to other people what I meant and I'll leave it at that.

ok rhino.

 

[Megadeath]

-Snip-
With me it’s possible to shut up and keep your head down and obey and there would be no problem.

Wow, more obnoxious totalitarianism. I'm shocked.

ok rhino.

Ahahahahahaha! I think you mean RINO, and that's definitely the first time I've ever been mislabelled that particular way.