I think it's a good thing that these cases keep coming up and that the US courts have been ruling consistently against those who think they should be able to discriminate in their business practices because of their particular interpretation of their religion. With Trump appointing a justice to the Supreme Court who might be inclined to go the other way, the wall of precedent could serve as somewhat of a deterrent to the US Supreme Court handing down a contradictory ruling. It may be a faint hope, but it's not entirely unreasonable.
"Washington [State] Supreme Court rules against florist in same-sex wedding case" |
CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-supreme-court-florist-same-sex-wedding-case/)
QuoteThe Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state's anti-discrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, had been fined by a lower court for denying service to a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman said she was exercising her First Amendment rights.
But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
"As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism," the opinion said.
Stutzman's lawyers immediately said they would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
[Continues . . . (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-supreme-court-florist-same-sex-wedding-case/)]
Poor woman, she must be feeling so persecuted.
That ruling makes me feel better. If it went the other way it would scare me because that could set a precedent to let foodstuff places starve out people in some places. Maybe that's extreme, but it's still a worry of mine.
^ You are thinking of the Soup Nazi no doubt......as in "No soup for you".
Typically religious freedom shouldn't come into play unless the government is actually interfering with one's religious practice. Government intrusion in how a church is operated or how a person prays would be examples. But when you enter into the marketplace, and certainly when you hold a government position, you've taken yourself outside the realm of religion.
We have problems with bakers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/christian-bakers-lose-pro-gay-marriage-cake-discrimination-rulin/) in Britain.
QuoteChristian bakers lose pro-gay marriage cake discrimination ruling challenge