Curt Freed, left, and his husband Robert Ingersoll pose for a photo after a hearing before Washington’s Supreme Court on Nov. 15, 2016, in Bellevue, Wash.Elaine Thompson / AP

Earlier in this term, the Supreme Court handed down a very narrow ruling in the case of the Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a “gay marriage” reception. The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission was in favor of the baker but it hinged on the overt and blatant hostility to religion by the Colorado civil right commissioners hearing the case. The ruling seemed to say, sure you can make him bake the cake, you just can’t advertise your disdain for religious people. Another similar case, this one involving a florist and known as Arlene’s Flowers vs. Washington, was also on the docket. In this particular case, the proprietor of the floral shop, Baronelle Stutzman, was asked by longtime homosexual customers to make the floral arrangements for their “wedding.” She refused, citing her religious objections. They sued. And here we are.

In this case, the Supreme Court did two things. It requested the Solicitor General to weigh in on the case and it reversed the state supreme court decision and sent it back to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.
Follow @streiffredstate

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========