He and the couple sued Stutzman.
The justices also declined to fully address the matter when they ruled in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who also declined to provide a same-sex wedding cake to a gay couple on the basis of his Christian convictions.
Waggoner said Stutzman had sold the customer, Rob Ingersoll, flowers for almost a decade and knew he was gay, but that his marriage did not comport with her beliefs and she could not provide services for it.
The federal government denied his petition for a writ of certiorari-a plea for the Supreme Court to take up his case-on Monday.
"I truly want the best for my friend", Stutzman wrote in a letter to Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in 2015.
Furious Maradona wants meeting with Argentina squad
If Iceland wins, then Sampaoli's side can still qualify if it beats Nigeria by two more goals than Iceland wins its game. The two results now put Argentina in a precarious situation.
In a 5-4 vote, the high court threw out a lower court ruling that had found that lawmakers intentionally undercut the voting power of Hispanic and black voters, oftentimes to keep white incumbents in office.
The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it is unwilling to immediately answer whether a business owner's religious beliefs can justify refusing gay couples seeking wedding services. "I am confident they will come to the same conclusion they did in their previous, unanimous ruling upholding the civil rights of a same-sex couple in our state".
Wisconsin attorney general Brad Schimel said he was "pleased" at the supreme court's decision not to appeal the conviction.
The Supreme Court has handed the case back to the Washington Supreme Court "for further consideration in light" of the ruling in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, however, that ruling was very narrow in scope. He argued that the Supreme Court had "passed on a huge opportunity to improve justice, especially for juveniles".
"The Supreme Court's decision is a major victory for consumers and for American Express". Republican lawmakers told the Supreme Court the ruling "would effectively transfer the redistricting authority away from the state legislatures and to the federal courts in ways that are antithetical to constitutional text and two centuries of experience". "It is past time to put to rest these proliferating attempts to undermine the civil rights of LGBT people in the name of religion". Instead, the majority ruled that the state's Civil Rights Commission showed open hostility toward the issues of religious freedom presented in the case and did not behave as a neutral arbiter of antidiscrimination and public accommodation laws, which is its role.