3 ms·
> If you run a wedding business and cannot accommodate all the different types of weddings recognized under the law, you are not capable of running a wedding bu
by stale2002 5y ago
> If you run a wedding business and cannot accommodate all the different types of weddings recognized under the law, you are not capable of running a wedding business
Thats an interesting opinion, but it is not supported by court precedent.
The previous court precedent, was related to the bakery/gay wedding case, and it was ruled in favor of the bakery in a 7-2 decision. (So no, it was not just the conservative judges who voted in favor of it)
So on a factual ground, you are wrong, and religious protections are an established precedent that was discussed even specifically related to gay weddings.
- akersten 5y agoI don't think precedent has been established here by the cake shop case. The Supreme Court has already turned away cases that it thought were similar to it: > Another predominate case involving anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom that was in the court system during Masterpiece was the Arlene's Flowers lawsuit in Washington, with the issue over flower arrangements being provided for a same-sex wedding. Prior to the decision in Masterpiece, a petition for writ of certiorari had been issued to the Supreme Court. Following the decision of Masterpiece, the flower shop owner used that decision to assert that they were shown similar religious hostility, and requested their case to be reheard. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the pending petition, and ordered that lower courts review the flower shop's case in a similar light as Masterpiece. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... If this were settled "factual ground," why would they take this case up instead of similarly turning it away?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]