I 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: >

I 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?