The rationale of the Supreme Court with Arlene's Flowers remains a mystery

Adjust Comment Print

Then, Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-LGBT hate group, will petition the Supreme Court again.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington represents Ingersoll and his husband, Curt Freed. "It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas- despite constituting a majority of the population within the state- will continue to be underrepresented in the political process", she said.

It is uncertain how quickly the Washington State Supreme Court will reconsider the florist's case. They would have preferred to see that opinion remain on the books to influence other lower court judges considering similar cases.

Monday's action came weeks after a Supreme Court decision in a similar case in Colorado.

In February, 2017, Washington's highest court unanimously ruled that Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers & Gifts in Richland, had discriminated against a gay couple when she refused to provide flowers for their wedding.

Like Phillips, Stutzman appealed a lower court's ruling that the state's anti-discrimination law required her to serve gay and straight couples equally.

Last week, the Supreme Court declined to issue a major ruling in two other gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin and Maryland that could have curbed the ability of state lawmakers to draw electoral districts purely for partisan advantage.

Information for this article was contributed by Adam Liptak of The New York Times; and by Gene Johnson and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press.

More news: Strong Irish economy vulnerable to Brexit
More news: Gary Lineker's F-word reaction to Harry Kane's England victor
More news: Trump Orders Creation of 6th Military Branch: 'Space Force'

Associate law professor Jim Oleske at Lewis and Clark Law School talked to Colorado Matters about the impact of Masterpiece on the Arlene's Flowers case, and where it goes from here.

The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it is unwilling to immediately answer whether a business owner's religious beliefs can justify refusing gay couples seeking wedding services. "In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denounced government hostility toward the religious beliefs about marriage held by creative professionals like Jack and Barronelle". And he says the language of the decision would seem to make it far more hard to punish a recalcitrant state by putting it back under federal supervision for the next decade - a Voting Rights Act provision the Supreme Court left intact five years ago.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said business owners generally can not deny equal access to goods and services under anti-discrimination laws without creating "a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws".

Host Frank Stasio talks with Guy-Uriel Charles, an Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law at Duke University and co-director of the Center on Law, Race, and Politics, about the Supreme Court's rejection of a North Carolina gerrymandering case.

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed from Washington.

State of Washington, back to the Washington Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the Court's recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

"The state of Washington has targeted me for over five years", Stutzman said.

Comments