Well, I think they would like for lower courts to hash it out for a while, do their analysis/balancing of the competing interests involved--gay rights vs religious rights--and then the Supreme Court will have those decisions to look at, see what they can learn from how the lower courts approached the issue and how the facts play out in different scenarios--and then the Supreme Court can step in and come up with a broader decision that will provide some clarity.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaign/tennessee-flower-shop-declines-rnc-order

Does this business have the right to refuse service for political views?

Are Republicans a "protected class"?

RickyP,
I did not say Republican. I said POLITICAL. The link is in reference to Republicans, though.

The answer is No. My point is this... People should have the right to serve whoever they wish as a business. I applaud this florist standing for her political idiom. If a person did not want to take wedding photographs of a Democrat couple, fine. It does not matter. Go find another photographer.

I place class this in the same position as the Florist and Baker written about above. What would the response have been if the Baker said I won't serve Democrats? There would have been an uproar.

If a business does not serve you, go find another...

Ricky's point is that there are protected classes under law.

For instance, you can't refuse service to someone solely because of their race, for instance. That's against the law.

I understand the point he is putting forth. However, the point I am making is that some people discriminate, and that is OK; but God forbid if the discrimination is turned on their issue.

This is EXACTLY why I don't want to have ANY rules concerning economic discrimination. If a business doesn't want to serve a person because they are [insert your protected class here], then let them be stupid and move on. That business is the one losing money.

This Bud Light fiasco comes to mind. They put forth a transgendered person as a spokeperson, and lose MAJOR market share because of it. Should everyone be required to purchase Bud Light in respect to the Transgendered Community?

NO! The people should be allowed to make the choices of who serves them, and whom they serve.

There is a big difference between refusing business based on the color of your skin, on your religion, sexual orientation vs. on the basis of political views. Other than stating that a business should be able to do what it wants, you have not made the case for that and/or why we allow discrimination against protected classes. And Budweiser did not refuse to serve conservatives--it was the opposite: conservatives boycotted Budweiser because egads they used a Trans person in an ad and that offended conservatives. So they boycotted Budweiser. That situation is not in any analogous to a business refusing to serve a protected class.

. If a business doesn't want to serve a person because they are [insert your protected class here],
Here's a few "insertions"
- Black
- Jewish
- Asian
- Women
Gay


Yeah, the practical application kind of sticks in the throat..
One of the reasons that there isn't a strong black middle class in America is that Banks wouldn't grant mortgages to black families (Actually I understand the practice still occurs according to Forbes.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2019/05/16/the-shocking-truth-about-the-u-s-black-homeownership-rate-50-years-after-the-1968-fair-housing-act/?sh=415156f663ba

So what you're saying is that its okay to discriminate and continue economic discrimination that has kept minorities down...
Classes of people have been protected because there is serious damage to them when there is no protection. And, according to Forbes, when those protections are enforced, continue.