Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas
Okay Damien I have been thinking all day of how to write this response, and it is tough.
First off, I wanted to say, that in absolutely no way is this an "I told you so post" - I am not gloating.
|
I never gave my own opinion of the judgement since I am not an expert on American law. I was pointing out that the Washington Post did not mean 'narrow' in the sense of the vote but in the sense of the scope of the judgement which was the original objection you had. I then pointed out that they were not alone in that judgement.
Quote:
|
They are as good as telling WA's SC that stare decisis is now in effect which means it was not narrow in scope at all - not one bit. It is precedent setting and every other ruling will have to abide by that.
|
Again, not a lawyer but we don't yet the know the outcome of the lower court. The lower court now has to the decide if the cake case does indeed set a precedent that applies in their case. If they come back with the same ruling then we're back to square one and the Supreme Court might have to hear it again or let it stands.
If this ruling was to be overturned and effectively said that it's legal to deny any service to people based on their sexuality then the entire purpose of anti-discrimination law would be challenged. In that case then yes the cake case would have set a huge precedent but I doubt that would be the last we would hear of it.