Supreme Court won't take up case of florist who refused service for same-sex couple

[bcking 3,157]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/supreme-court-flowers/index.html

 

They REALLY don't want to have to weigh in on this topic. They referred the case back to the lower court and asked the court to review it again, taking into account the Cake Shop case ruling. Except the Cake Shop case ruling was based on specifics that probably won't be able to be applied to this case. 

 

It's kind of funny when the highest court in the land wants to "pass the buck" to someone else...

[yuna628 9,533]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/supreme-court-flowers/index.html

 

They REALLY don't want to have to weigh in on this topic. They referred the case back to the lower court and asked the court to review it again, taking into account the Cake Shop case ruling. Except the Cake Shop case ruling was based on specifics that probably won't be able to be applied to this case. 

 

It's kind of funny when the highest court in the land wants to "pass the buck" to someone else...

Well they did admonish in their previous ruling that nothing stated in the Cake Shop case should be taken as precedent or to be expect that they should rule the same way under similar but different circumstances.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Well they did admonish in their previous ruling that nothing stated in the Cake Shop case should be taken as precedent or to be expect that they should rule the same way under similar but different circumstances.

Makes it even harder for the lower courts to review the case again "in light" of their ruling.

 

"Please consider our previous case, which we told you previously you shouldn't consider as precedent..."

 

 

[Dashinka 23,306]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

Makes it even harder for the lower courts to review the case again "in light" of their ruling.

 

"Please consider our previous case, which we told you previously you shouldn't consider as precedent..."

 

 

Agreed, I imagine twisted instructions like that really make lower court judges heads spin.

[yuna628 9,533]

I think what they're saying is the circumstances of these two cases are different. It's left up to the original court to review again. Doesn't mean they need to change their decision. Remember SCOTUS did not rule on the cake baker case in the way the defense wanted them to (free speech), to the contrary they ruled that at the time the event happened gay marriage was not yet legal in the particular state, the commission was biased in their ruling (in review of their words and actions during the hear), and did not offer proper due process rights (it was in essence a sham hearing, they had already made up their minds). TBH if the commission had not done this.. I think likely SCOTUS would have not ruled even slightly in the baker's favor. So if the circumstances are in any way similar to the cake baking case, then yes the lower court likely would have to change their decision. This simply asks the lower court to examine not if her free speech was violated, but if anything else was violated that was similar. No doubt it will find itself back to SCOTUS again. They just can't be bothered with it right now.