SCOTUS allows businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers

[Copernicus]

For the second time, the US Supreme Court has overturned a state court's anti-discrimination ruling on rather vague charges that the state court did not sufficiently consider the religious viewpoint of a business owner who denied services to a gay couple and claimed religion as a motivation. The first case was a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage celebration in Colorado. Now they have returned a case to the Supreme Court of Washington state, which had unanimously ruled against a florist that had denied a floral arrangement in support of a gay wedding.

See Justices decline to rule on florist who refused to serve same-sex couple

I don't understand why SCOTUS believes that the decisions themselves discriminated against religion, but it does look like SCOTUS is trying to weaken the law in ways that will bring back businesses routinely discriminating against customers because of the class of people they belong to rather than a legitimate business-related reason.

 

[James Madison]

For the second time, the US Supreme Court has overturned a state court's anti-discrimination ruling on rather vague charges that the state court did not sufficiently consider the religious viewpoint of a business owner who denied services to a gay couple and claimed religion as a motivation. The first case was a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage celebration in Colorado. Now they have returned a case to the Supreme Court of Washington state, which had unanimously ruled against a florist that had denied a floral arrangement in support of a gay wedding.

See Justices decline to rule on florist who refused to serve same-sex couple

I don't understand why SCOTUS believes that the decisions themselves discriminated against religion, but it does look like SCOTUS is trying to weaken the law in ways that will bring back businesses routinely discriminating against customers because of the class of people they belong to.

They vacated the Washington Supreme Court decision and remanded the case back to the Washington Supreme Court for the express purpose of deciding her case in light of their ruling in Masterpiece v. CCRC.

Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 584 U. S. ____ (2018).​

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arlenes-flowers-inc-v-washington/

This act by SCOTUS does not reflect a belief by SCOTUS the Washington Supreme Court decision "discriminated against religion."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For the second time, the US Supreme Court has overturned a state court's anti-discrimination ruling on rather vague charges that the state court did not sufficiently consider the religious viewpoint of a business owner who denied services to a gay couple and claimed religion as a motivation. The first case was a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage celebration in Colorado. Now they have returned a case to the Supreme Court of Washington state, which had unanimously ruled against a florist that had denied a floral arrangement in support of a gay wedding.

See Justices decline to rule on florist who refused to serve same-sex couple

I don't understand why SCOTUS believes that the decisions themselves discriminated against religion, but it does look like SCOTUS is trying to weaken the law in ways that will bring back businesses routinely discriminating against customers because of the class of people they belong to.

They vacated the Washington Supreme Court decision and remanded the case back to the Washington Supreme Court for the express purpose of deciding her case in light of their ruling in Masterpiece v. CCRC.

Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 584 U. S. ____ (2018).​

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arlenes-flowers-inc-v-washington/

This act by SCOTUS does not reflect a belief by SCOTUS the Washington Supreme Court decision "discriminated against religion."

What, the Washington Court make fun of the florist's religion too?

Or has the camel now entered the tent? "Religious hostility"... the true victims.

 

[dismal]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

I don't think there is a constitutional right to have someone provide you flower arrangements.

 

[Copernicus]

How about a constitutional right to be served a sandwich at a lunch counter? How about a constitutional right not to be forced to sit in a segregated area of a bus?

 

[James Madison]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

The Court did not give religion "special status." Neither did the opinion endorse the view of a "freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others." Kennedy said quite the opposite.

 

[dismal]

How about a constitutional right to be served a sandwich at a lunch counter? How about a constitutional right not to be forced to sit in a segregated area of a bus?

Where do you think those are in the Constitution?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

I don't think there is a constitutional right to have someone provide you flower arrangements.

Can you legally refuse to provide a flower arrangement to a customer because they are black? If not, then can you legally do so because they are gay? If so, why? And if not, then why should Religion change that?

 

[dismal]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

I don't think there is a constitutional right to have someone provide you flower arrangements.

Can you legally refuse to provide a flower arrangement to a customer because they are black? If not, then can you legally do so because they are gay? If so, why? And if not, then why should Religion change that?

That would be a state or local law question.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

The Court did not give religion "special status." Neither did the opinion endorse the view of a "freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others." Kennedy said quite the opposite.

I was stopped at a paywall, and I think I misread the OP. I took from the OP that they ruled that religious freedom should allow people to deny people service because they are gay. I retract what I wrote above.

 

[scombrid]

How about a constitutional right to be served a sandwich at a lunch counter? How about a constitutional right not to be forced to sit in a segregated area of a bus?

Where do you think those are in the Constitution?

Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 un-Constitutional?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you legally refuse to provide a flower arrangement to a customer because they are black? If not, then can you legally do so because they are gay? If so, why? And if not, then why should Religion change that?

That would be a state or local law question.

Segregated buses and lunch counters too?

 

[Copernicus]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

The Court did not give religion "special status." Neither did the opinion endorse the view of a "freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others." Kennedy said quite the opposite.

Of course it did. There is no other way to interpret the decision. What made SCOTUS even think that the Colorado case was relevant here? The florist claimed that his religion superseded the law. Does that mean that his business can ignore the law? This seems to be exactly what the justices are saying. They must have some reason to believe that the Washington Supreme Court discriminated against the florist on the basis of his religion rather than on the basis of his violation of state law. Why would they come to that conclusion? They don't say. Lower courts are left to second guess motives now. Will they have to rely on telepathic powers to determine whether or not someone is sincerely religious or just a bigot hiding behind a religious excuse? Prosecutors will have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the religious conviction is just a pretense.

How about a constitutional right to be served a sandwich at a lunch counter? How about a constitutional right not to be forced to sit in a segregated area of a bus?

Where do you think those are in the Constitution?

Where it guarantees equal treatment under the law. Businesses depend on public infrastructure for operations and protection of property, so they have an obligation to treat everyone in a way that respects the law. This florist has explicitly claimed that his religion gives him the right to ignore antidiscrimination law in the state of Washington. He has every right not to attend gay weddings and to attend demonstrations against gay weddings. He should not have the right to use his tax-subsidized business to deny services to gays on the ground that their behavior violates his religious scruples.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The reasoning is horrible. Religion should have zero special status. Religious freedom should mean only to believe what you want and not be the freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others that have a sound basis. This is theocratic thinking on the court.

The Court did not give religion "special status." Neither did the opinion endorse the view of a "freedom to trample on any laws or rights of others." Kennedy said quite the opposite.

I was stopped at a paywall, and I think I misread the OP. I took from the OP that they ruled that religious freedom should allow people to deny people service because they are gay. I retract what I wrote above.

What SCOTUS "ruled" was that the Washington Supreme Court needs to readdress the case as per the Bakery decision. The trouble is, there does not appear to be a parallel as the Bakery decision revolved around the appearance of a hostile bias against a sincerely held religious belief. No such bias appears to exist in the Washington case... which makes this SCOTUS "decision" indicate the bakery case was a camel's nose under the tent for approval of religious based discrimination.

 

[dismal]

Of course it did. There is no other way to interpret the decision. What made SCOTUS even think that the Colorado case was relevant here? The florist claimed that his religion superseded the law. Does that mean that his business can ignore the law? This seems to be exactly what the justices are saying. They must have some reason to believe that the Washington Supreme Court discriminated against the florist on the basis of his religion rather than on the basis of his violation of state law. Why would they come to that conclusion? They don't say. Lower courts are left to second guess motives now. Will they have to rely on telepathic powers to determine whether or not someone is sincerely religious or just a bigot hiding behind a religious excuse? Prosecutors will have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the religious conviction is just a pretense.

How about a constitutional right to be served a sandwich at a lunch counter? How about a constitutional right not to be forced to sit in a segregated area of a bus?

Where do you think those are in the Constitution?

Where it guarantees equal treatment under the law. Businesses depend on public infrastructure for operations and protection of property, so they have an obligation to treat everyone in a way that respects the law. This florist has explicitly claimed that his religion gives him the right to ignore antidiscrimination law in the state of Washington. He has every right not to attend gay weddings and to attend demonstrations against gay weddings. He should not have the right to use his tax-subsidized business to deny services to gays on the ground that their behavior violates his religious scruples.

"Equal treatment under the law" means the government may not discriminate. It does not apply to private citizens.

 

[James Madison]

I was stopped at a paywall, and I think I misread the OP. I took from the OP that they ruled that religious freedom should allow people to deny people service because they are gay. I retract what I wrote above.

What SCOTUS "ruled" was that the Washington Supreme Court needs to readdress the case as per the Bakery decision. The trouble is, there does not appear to be a parallel as the Bakery decision revolved around the appearance of a hostile bias against a sincerely held religious belief. No such bias appears to exist in the Washington case... which makes this SCOTUS "decision" indicate the bakery case was a camel's nose under the tent for approval of religious based discrimination.

Your conclusion of “camel’s nose under the tent” is a non-sequitur.

But you’re right, Ohs Noes, whatever is to be done? The [emoji248] nose is now under the tent, yesterday cake, today flowers, tomorrow human sacrifice, the next day mandatory prayer at 5pm.

We are soooo screwed now. The floodgates have been opened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Of course it did. There is no other way to interpret the decision. What made SCOTUS even think that the Colorado case was relevant here? The florist claimed that his religion superseded the law. Does that mean that his business can ignore the law? This seems to be exactly what the justices are saying. They must have some reason to believe that the Washington Supreme Court discriminated against the florist on the basis of his religion rather than on the basis of his violation of state law. Why would they come to that conclusion? They don't say. Lower courts are left to second guess motives now. Will they have to rely on telepathic powers to determine whether or not someone is sincerely religious or just a bigot hiding behind a religious excuse? Prosecutors will have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the religious conviction is just a pretense.

How about a constitutional right to be served a sandwich at a lunch counter? How about a constitutional right not to be forced to sit in a segregated area of a bus?

Where do you think those are in the Constitution?

.

Or the Court doesn’t yet have any opinion as to whether the state mistreated the florist but instead would like an opinion integrating their opinion and they’ll reassess then if necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was stopped at a paywall, and I think I misread the OP. I took from the OP that they ruled that religious freedom should allow people to deny people service because they are gay. I retract what I wrote above.

What SCOTUS "ruled" was that the Washington Supreme Court needs to readdress the case as per the Bakery decision. The trouble is, there does not appear to be a parallel as the Bakery decision revolved around the appearance of a hostile bias against a sincerely held religious belief. No such bias appears to exist in the Washington case... which makes this SCOTUS "decision" indicate the bakery case was a camel's nose under the tent for approval of religious based discrimination.

Your conclusion of “camel’s nose under the tent” is a non-sequitur.

But you’re right, Ohs Noes, whatever is to be done? The [emoji248] nose is now under the tent,...

No, the nose was under the tent with the cake ruling. This reversal of the Washington case is the camel in the tent.

yesterday cake, today flowers, tomorrow human sacrifice, the next day mandatory prayer at 5pm.

We are soooo screwed now. The floodgates have been opened.

You have been posting around me too long, you aren't making sense.

 

[Copernicus]

Of course it did. There is no other way to interpret the decision. What made SCOTUS even think that the Colorado case was relevant here? The florist claimed that his religion superseded the law. Does that mean that his business can ignore the law? This seems to be exactly what the justices are saying. They must have some reason to believe that the Washington Supreme Court discriminated against the florist on the basis of his religion rather than on the basis of his violation of state law. Why would they come to that conclusion? They don't say. Lower courts are left to second guess motives now. Will they have to rely on telepathic powers to determine whether or not someone is sincerely religious or just a bigot hiding behind a religious excuse? Prosecutors will have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the religious conviction is just a pretense.




Where it guarantees equal treatment under the law. Businesses depend on public infrastructure for operations and protection of property, so they have an obligation to treat everyone in a way that respects the law. This florist has explicitly claimed that his religion gives him the right to ignore antidiscrimination law in the state of Washington. He has every right not to attend gay weddings and to attend demonstrations against gay weddings. He should not have the right to use his tax-subsidized business to deny services to gays on the ground that their behavior violates his religious scruples.

"Equal treatment under the law" means the government may not discriminate. It does not apply to private citizens.

Yes, I can agree with that. The florist has every right as a private citizen not to attend gay weddings. He can join demonstrations that protest the legality of such weddings. He can refuse to shake hands with his gay friend. (The gay customer in this case was apparently a longstanding customer in his store.) But can he exempt his business from an anti-discrimination law because of his religious beliefs as a private citizen? That is the relevant question here. Does the law apply to him as a private citizen or him as a business owner? Or is there no difference? And, if special religious exemptions apply to owners of businesses, is that not our government promoting religious practices over application of its laws? How does that not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from promoting religious beliefs?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course it did. There is no other way to interpret the decision. What made SCOTUS even think that the Colorado case was relevant here? The florist claimed that his religion superseded the law. Does that mean that his business can ignore the law? This seems to be exactly what the justices are saying. They must have some reason to believe that the Washington Supreme Court discriminated against the florist on the basis of his religion rather than on the basis of his violation of state law. Why would they come to that conclusion? They don't say. Lower courts are left to second guess motives now. Will they have to rely on telepathic powers to determine whether or not someone is sincerely religious or just a bigot hiding behind a religious excuse? Prosecutors will have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the religious conviction is just a pretense.




Where it guarantees equal treatment under the law. Businesses depend on public infrastructure for operations and protection of property, so they have an obligation to treat everyone in a way that respects the law. This florist has explicitly claimed that his religion gives him the right to ignore antidiscrimination law in the state of Washington. He has every right not to attend gay weddings and to attend demonstrations against gay weddings. He should not have the right to use his tax-subsidized business to deny services to gays on the ground that their behavior violates his religious scruples.

"Equal treatment under the law" means the government may not discriminate. It does not apply to private citizens.

Yes, I can agree with that. The florist has every right as a private citizen not to attend gay weddings. He can join demonstrations that protest the legality of such weddings. He can refuse to shake hands with his gay friend. (The gay customer in this case was apparently a longstanding customer in his store.) But can he exempt his business from an anti-discrimination law because of his religious beliefs as a private citizen? That is the relevant question here. Does the law apply to him as a private citizen or him as a business owner? Or is there no difference?

What if he wasn't incorporated but was a sole proprietorship, so there was no difference between him as an individual and the business of the flowers? Would it the anti-discrimination law apply then?