Florist Discriminated Against Gay Couple, Washington State Supreme Court Rules
By Kirk Johnson @ NY Times
https://hive.am/Florist-Case
The case, the court said in its 59-page decision, "is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches." And laws, the decision said, can have legitimate social goals. "Public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services," it said. "Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens."
-----------------------------------------------
This case is now going to the Supreme Court. A lot is going to depend on how fast it gets there and who is finally appointed to fill the now vacant seat. The question that court will have to put to rest is if this is an equal treatment issue or is it a religious freedom issue. Our concerns are unquestionably intertwined.
Link to the court ruling: https://hive.am/Court
No surprise there. If you serve one, you must serve all. Equal treatment in the market place is foundational to civil rights.
I would not bet on this going the equal treatment route under the current administration. In fact I would not bet on any equality with it.
Just my 2 cents,
Jeanette
Quote from: JeanetteLW on February 25, 2017, 02:29:45 PM
I would not bet on this going the equal treatment route under the current administration. In fact I would not bet on any equality with it.
Just my 2 cents,
Jeanette
Not when one of their key policies is forcing through a law that allows businesses to do this.
The Washington Supreme Court decision is excellent and well-reasoned, but it has some dicey prospects looking forward.
If it comes before the current eight-member US Supreme Court, it might be affirmed. The odds fade if the Senate confirms Trump's appointee Judge Gorsuch to fill the current vacancy on the Court.
Gorsuch is a fervent advocate of the idea that the "religious liberty" of fundamentalist Christian business owners should override rights of women or LGBT people. That's what his opinion was in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius when he weighed in on it at the appellate court level. The citation is 723 F.3d 1114 (2013) if anybody feels motivated to read Gorsuch's detailed concurring opinion.
The Hobby Lobby decision allowed a corporation controlled by right-wing fundamentalists to strip contraception coverage out of the health insurance provided to female employees, despite the fact that federal law required health insurance plans to cover contraception. The corporate owners resented the fact that their female employees would have access to contraception that the owners found religiously offensive. Gorsuch said the owners were in the right, and that their religious concern outweighed the government's interest in regulating health insurance to ensure that women have access to contraception.
Given his reasoning in Hobby Lobby, there's no doubt that if Gorsuch gets a chance to review the Washington Supreme Court decision his opinion will be that the "religious freedom" of business owners should outweigh the state's interest in protecting LGBT people from discrimination in public accommodations and the provision of ordinary business services to the general public.
Under this banner of "restoring religious freedom," the House of Representatives is currently considering legislation to allow business owners to evade compliance with anti-discrimination law. Donald Trump has pledged repeatedly (both before and after the election) to sign such a bill if Congress passes it.
If events develop along this line, we may soon see signs in shop windows saying, "This is a Christian store. We don't serve gay people." Or interracial couples. Or Mexicans. Or Jews. Or Muslims. Or you-name-it. Would this be used against transgender people? You can bet on it.
All Civil rights movements take steps forward and back. We should at least take a moment to celebrate the victories.