« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Case Back to Lower Courts with New Directions  (Read 2305 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Case Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« on: June 25, 2018, 04:31:17 pm »
SOURCE: HOTAIR

URL: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/25/religious-liberty-win-punt-scotus-vacates-arlenes-flowers-ruling/

by Ed Morrissey


The Supreme Court left its most anticipated decisions for another day in a brief session today, but the real action came with the orders from the court. After overturning a Colorado action against a Christian baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court declined an opportunity to address the same issue directly with Arlene’s Flowers — but they did overturn the extant ruling against Barronelle Stutzman. The order sends the case back to court, with direction to consider Masterpiece Cakeshop in a new trial:

Quote
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday granted the appeal of a Washington state florist who was fined after she refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding, and the court erased a lower court ruling against her. …

Monday’s action sends the florist’s case back to the Washington state courts “for further consideration in light” of the decision in the baker case, which offered little guidance on how to balance gay rights and religious freedom.

And that means … what, exactly? No one’s really sure, except that the court has essentially asked for a do-over

(EXCERPT) CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST....
« Last Edit: June 25, 2018, 06:22:07 pm by SirLinksALot »
Logged

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,980
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2018, 04:56:53 pm »
I don't know what libs can say now in lieu of the idiot restaurant owner in Virginia throwing out Sarah Sanders.  They obviously  agree that a business owner should be able to refuse service to some customers for certain reasons having nothing to do with the comportment of the customer at the place of business. They just don't realize it yet.  :2popcorn:
Logged

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,980
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2018, 05:00:17 pm »
But again the flower shop owner in Washington didn't refuse to sell the homosexual customers any of her flowers. She refused to make an arrangement of  flowers for a certain occasion.
Sarah Sanders ordered what was on the menu. She didn't even ask for a meal the restaurant didn't normally make.
But I approve of a business owner being allowed to refuse service to a customer for whatever reason. Let the chips fall where they may.
Logged

Online Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,580
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2018, 05:01:10 pm »
Quote from: goatprairie on June 25, 2018, 04:56:53 pm
I don't know what libs can say now in lieu of the idiot restaurant owner in Virginia throwing out Sarah Sanders.  They obviously  agree that a business owner should be able to refuse service to some customers for certain reasons having nothing to do with the comportment of the customer at the place of business. They just don't realize it yet.  :2popcorn:

GREAT point!
Logged

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2018, 05:28:43 pm »
Quote from: goatprairie on June 25, 2018, 04:56:53 pm
I don't know what libs can say now in lieu of the idiot restaurant owner in Virginia throwing out Sarah Sanders.  They obviously  agree that a business owner should be able to refuse service to some customers for certain reasons having nothing to do with the comportment of the customer at the place of business. They just don't realize it yet.  :2popcorn:

Some animals are more equal than other animals in this brave new country we live in.

Learn it.  Know it.  Expect it.
Logged
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,412
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2018, 05:34:46 pm »
The owner of the Red Hen was perfectly within his rights to ask Sarah Sanders to leave and the left should remember that the next time someone tells Hanoi Jane to get the hell out of their place of business.
Logged
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Restored

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,659
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2018, 05:41:55 pm »
It was a her and another report shows that she stalked Sanders to another restaurant.
Logged
Countdown to Resignation

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2018, 05:49:36 pm »
Quote from: SirLinksALot on June 25, 2018, 04:31:17 pm
And that means … what, exactly? No one’s really sure, except that the court has essentially asked for a do-over



@SirLinksALot sounds to me that this case mirrors the Colorado bakery case and they are telling the Washington State court that they need to use that ruling as a guideline for making a new judgement in their case.
Logged
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2018, 05:54:23 pm »
Quote from: goatprairie on June 25, 2018, 04:56:53 pm
I don't know what libs can say now in lieu of the idiot restaurant owner in Virginia throwing out Sarah Sanders.  They obviously  agree that a business owner should be able to refuse service to some customers for certain reasons having nothing to do with the comportment of the customer at the place of business. They just don't realize it yet.  :2popcorn:

The argument is (playing devil's advocate) that political beliefs are not a protected class, while religion, race, gender, and sexual orientation are.

In other words, one can discriminate against someone for political beliefs, but not because they are black, gay, or Jewish.

A Jewish shop owner can kick out a Stormfronter from his restaurant. A Stormfronter however, can't have a 'no blacks allowed' sign.
Logged

Offline Restored

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,659
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2018, 05:56:40 pm »
But a same-sex wedding is not a person so it more like something political.
Logged
Countdown to Resignation

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2018, 06:00:00 pm »
Quote from: Restored on June 25, 2018, 05:56:40 pm
But a same-sex wedding is not a person so it more like something political.

That's where the other side's argument gets convoluted, because he wasn't refusing service to them, only to not participate in the event. He was willing to sell them a cake and let them add their own message on it if they wanted, just not go and set it up, etc. To him it was religious, to them it was about sexual orientation, but to everyone else, it is political.

The lines get really fuzzy when the government starts getting involved in all this.
Logged

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2018, 06:00:06 pm »
Quote from: goatprairie on June 25, 2018, 04:56:53 pm
I don't know what libs can say now in lieu of the idiot restaurant owner in Virginia throwing out Sarah Sanders.  They obviously  agree that a business owner should be able to refuse service to some customers for certain reasons having nothing to do with the comportment of the customer at the place of business. They just don't realize it yet.  :2popcorn:
On the other hand how can you support this decision and not support the idiot restaurant owner?
Logged

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2018, 06:03:47 pm »
Quote from: goatprairie on June 25, 2018, 05:00:17 pm
But again the flower shop owner in Washington didn't refuse to sell the homosexual customers any of her flowers. She refused to make an arrangement of  flowers for a certain occasion.
And the restaurant owner did not refuse to sell to any press secretary, she refused to sell to a certain press secretary.

Quote from: goatprairie on June 25, 2018, 05:00:17 pm
Sarah Sanders ordered what was on the menu. She didn't even ask for a meal the restaurant didn't normally make.

The gay couple ordered a wedding cake, something on the baker's menu as it were.  It was not something the bakery did not normally make; it make wedding cakes all the time.

Quote from: goatprairie on June 25, 2018, 05:00:17 pm
But I approve of a business owner being allowed to refuse service to a customer for whatever reason. Let the chips fall where they may.

But you seem to be more upset at the restaurant than the baker.  If you support the right of one to decide who they will serve and who they won't then I don't see how you can't support the other.
Logged

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2018, 06:07:47 pm »
Quote from: AbaraXas on June 25, 2018, 06:00:00 pm
That's where the other side's argument gets convoluted, because he wasn't refusing service to them, only to not participate in the event. He was willing to sell them a cake and let them add their own message on it if they wanted, just not go and set it up, etc. To him it was religious, to them it was about sexual orientation, but to everyone else, it is political.

The baker based his decision on his moral convictions.  According to her interview in the Post so did the restaurant owner.
Logged

Online Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,580
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2018, 06:07:56 pm »
Quote from: AbaraXas on June 25, 2018, 05:54:23 pm
The argument is (playing devil's advocate) that political beliefs are not a protected class, while religion, race, gender, and sexual orientation are.

In other words, one can discriminate against someone for political beliefs, but not because they are black, gay, or Jewish.

A Jewish shop owner can kick out a Stormfronter from his restaurant. A Stormfronter however, can't have a 'no blacks allowed' sign.

Interesting ... can a Stormfronter refuse to serve Jews?
Logged

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2018, 06:09:11 pm »
Quote from: txradioguy on June 25, 2018, 05:49:36 pm
@SirLinksALot sounds to me that this case mirrors the Colorado bakery case and they are telling the Washington State court that they need to use that ruling as a guideline for making a new judgement in their case.

What exactly is the guideline?  I'm a legal layman, but it seemed to me that the guideline was just don't say bad things about someone's faith.  Short of that I can't discern any real guidance on how a lower court is to strike the balance that seems to be in question here.
Logged
James 1:20

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2018, 06:12:24 pm »
Quote from: Right_in_Virginia on June 25, 2018, 06:07:56 pm
Interesting ... can a Stormfronter refuse to serve Jews?

Probably not.  Every state I'm aware of with anti-discrimination laws has religion as a protected class.  Nazis?  Not so much.
Logged

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2018, 06:14:10 pm »
I don't know what it all means.  But what I do know is the 9 circus will screw it up..again.  And it will go back to SCOTUS....again.
Logged
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline Restored

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,659
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2018, 06:16:09 pm »
Quote
And the restaurant owner did not refuse to sell to any press secretary, she refused to sell to a certain press secretary.

You don't know that. You only know she refused to sell to someone she felt was morally wrong.
Logged
Countdown to Resignation

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,098
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2018, 06:18:16 pm »
Quote from: AbaraXas on June 25, 2018, 06:00:00 pm
That's where the other side's argument gets convoluted, because he wasn't refusing service to them, only to not participate in the event. He was willing to sell them a cake and let them add their own message on it if they wanted, just not go and set it up, etc. To him it was religious, to them it was about sexual orientation, but to everyone else, it is political.

The lines get really fuzzy when the government starts getting involved in all this.

Right.  Suppose a straight person goes into a baker and orders a cake for a gay wedding, that they are giving to their friend.  Baker refuses.  Is there a claim?

In any case, I think what is really going on here is that the Court is punting on this until after Justice Kennedy is gone.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2018, 06:20:40 pm by Maj. Bill Martin »
Logged

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2018, 06:19:50 pm »
Quote from: Right_in_Virginia on June 25, 2018, 06:07:56 pm
Interesting ... can a Stormfronter refuse to serve Jews?

There was a case in the late 80s where the Dallas Country Club got in major trouble for having a No Jews/No Minorities policy. Not only did they get in legal trouble, it even backfired on one of the major developers Trammell Crow. I don't think his reputation ever recovered.

Of course, there were also several high profile cases in the early 70s where the Nixon Administration went after property developers and landlords, mostly in New York, for having 'no blacks' policies.

I think some of the high profile cases made business owners think twice about denying anyone service on those grounds for the longest time.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2018, 06:23:01 pm by AbaraXas »
Logged

Offline Restored

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,659
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2018, 06:24:35 pm »
Shoot, the country club where the held the Masters didn't allow women.

When I was with a civics org, we put on a major PGA event. The President of the club got a free membership to the hosting country club. Our incoming president was black and the country club wasn't integrated yet. Those were some long discussions. We eventually won out.
Logged
Countdown to Resignation

Offline RedHead

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,592
  • Gender: Female
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2018, 06:26:55 pm »
Quote from: Restored on June 25, 2018, 06:16:09 pm
You don't know that. You only know she refused to sell to someone she felt was morally wrong.

Well send Nancy Pelosi's Press Secretary down there and let's see.
Logged

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,980
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2018, 06:29:55 pm »
Quote from: Bigun on June 25, 2018, 05:34:46 pm
The owner of the Red Hen was perfectly within his rights to ask Sarah Sanders to leave and the left should remember that the next time someone tells Hanoi Jane to get the hell out of their place of business.
:thumbsup:
Logged

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,460
Re: SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Back to Lower Courts with New Directions
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2018, 06:31:28 pm »
Quote from: Bigun on June 25, 2018, 05:34:46 pm
The owner of the Red Hen was perfectly within his rights to ask Sarah Sanders to leave and the left should remember that the next time someone tells Hanoi Jane to get the hell out of their place of business.

YEP.
Every transaction is a contract, freely entered into by all parties.
Let the market sort it out, not the law.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »