Justices won't hear case of Richland anti-gay marriage florist Arlene's Flowers

Thursday, 28 Jun, 2018

"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".

"There is simply no record of anti-religious sentiment from the Washington State courts", said ACLU of Washington Legal Director Emily Chiang in a statement Monday. "This is a huge win for the Constitution, Texas and the democratic process".

"The court's decision is a major victory for consumers and for American Express", American Express Chairman and CEO Stephen J. Squeri said. The justices are expected to hand down decisions this week as the court's term comes to a close.

Gerrymandering typically is accomplished by packing voters who tend to favor a particular party into a small number of districts to reduce their statewide voting power while scattering others in districts in numbers too small to be a majority.

Making the same argument that they did in the baker case, Stutzman's lawyers said creating flower arrangements is a form of creative expression protected by the First Amendment and that she should not be forced to deliver a message through her work that she disagrees with.

Stutzman's attorney Kristin Waggoner said it is possible the Arlene's Flowers case will eventually be appealed back to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of resolving the core issue of whether business owners citing their faith can refuse to comply with anti-discrimination laws in certain situations.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision, asserting that "the good faith of the legislature must be presumed".

The court's order suggests that while the justices want the lower court to take another look at the case given the court's most recent ruling, the justices themselves aren't ready to jump into the contentious debate for now.

Stutzman says it didn't bother her then, and it doesn't bother her now that her friend and customer is gay, adding she opted out of participating in one event in ten years because scripture teaches her that marriage between a man and a woman.

The courts aren't enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities' right to vote. She was joined in the dissent by the Court's usually liberal Justices.

RICHARD PILDES: This was just such a mess.

Pildes and Levitt also suggested that the forgiving standard adopted by the conservative court majority is a bad indicator for those challenging the Trump travel ban.

"[Here's] the bottom line: the Supreme Court is requesting the state of Washington to realize. that they can't have a process of adopting and implementing laws or ordinances that are clear [ly]. biased and attacking of a particular group due to their ideology or beliefs contrary to that group".

"The issue at the heart of both [the] redistricting case and the travel ban case is the lingering impact of prior discrimination on something you do a few months later", Levitt said.

LEVITT: What any other state can take from today's decision is that if I intend to discriminate, a court may nip and tuck a bit. And I think that is a foreboding omen for the travel ban case.