Justices won't hear case of anti-gay marriage florist

Justices won't hear case of anti-gay marriage florist

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office defended the maps in court, praised the ruling. Washington state ruled that Arlene's Flowers could not decline to provide its arrangements for same-sex weddings under the state's public accommodation laws.

"The constitutional problem that the Supreme Court found in the bakery case - anti-religious bias by a government adjudicator - is simply not present in the flower shop case", Mr. Esseks wrote Monday on the ACLU's website.

According to Waggoner, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson's suit amounts to nothing more than a malicious personal witch hunt that is completely out of line with what his role should be.

Representing Stutzman, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing Stutzman's case should be reconsidered because the court reversed Colorado's decision to punish Phillips for declining the same-sex couples request based on his religious beliefs about marriage. "The attorney general has always ignored that part of my case, choosing to vilify me and my faith instead of respecting my religious beliefs about marriage". This decision was confirmed in June 2017 by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

If Stutzman does not win the second time around, she plans to take the case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.




"I am confident they will come to the same conclusion they did in their previous, unanimous ruling upholding the civil rights of same-sex couples in our state", Ferguson said. "Dassey was subjected to myriad psychologically coercive techniques, but the state court did not review his interrogation with the special care required by Supreme Court precedent".

His lawyers said his confession, which was taped and aired in portions of the series, shouldn't have been used to convict him. It's not clear that either case will turn out differently and both could return to the Supreme Court quickly, perhaps in time for the term that begins in October.

Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel and law and policy director at Lambda Legal, had a different take and called the Supreme Court's decision "immensely frustrating and disappointing".

In a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the conservative justices decided, as Politico reported, that "lower courts went too far in concluding that maps adopted by Texas in 2013 were tainted by discrimination judges found in maps the state drew two years earlier". The decision was 7-2, but it was ruled on very narrow grounds that didn't really address some larger free speech questions raised by the case. "Our work to ensure LGBT equality is the law and the norm in all 50 states will continue".

In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative majority ruled that the challengers had not done enough to show that the Republican-led Texas legislature acted with discriminatory intent when it adopted new electoral maps in 2013 for state legislative and USA congressional seats.

Related Articles