Monday, June 25, 2018

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

Barronelle Stutzman, proprietor of Arlene's Flowers
17-108 ARLENE'S FLOWERS, INC., ET AL. V. WASHINGTON, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Washington for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 584 U. S. ____ (2018).
Given the ambiguity and narrowness of Masterpiece the Supreme Court of Washington is seemingly compelled to determine whether or not Washington is hostile to religion.

Schmucky me. I thought that what the Court did with Arlene's would determine doctrine with respect to the competing rights of gays to be served in public accommodations and proprietors who believe that such service violates their religious beliefs. The Court has once again punted and, on balance, has ruled for the Christian — at least for now.

I do not see how the Washington Supreme Court has any choice but to reinstate the original judgment after review. Then, Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-LGBT hate group, will petition the Supreme Court again.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.