4 ms·

The First Amendment protects both freedom of speech and religion. But even if you insist on limiting the argument to free speech: > Justice Clarence Thomas wro

The First Amendment protects both freedom of speech and religion. But even if you insist on limiting the argument to free speech: > Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, in an opinion joined by Gorsuch, to address an issue that the court did not decide: whether an order mandating that Phillips bake cakes for same-sex weddings violates his right to free speech. In Thomas’ view, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment. Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he believes his faith forbids,” violates his First Amendment rights.

ceejayoz 8y ago
You'll find that two of nine justices writing a concurring opinion doesn't constitute anywhere near a majority.
- leereeves 8y ago
  And you'll find, if you read my first comment more carefully, that I said "First Amendment", not free speech. The 1st protects both free speech and freedom of religion. Both are about being able to practice and express our own beliefs without the government forcing us to do otherwise.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    As various anti-discrimination laws have survived SCOTUS challenges, it's pretty clear it's not quite so simple as just the First Amendment here. Per the majority opinion: > But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      The majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's failure to respect freedom of religion. They also acknowledged the free speech argument, without ruling on it either way, while the concurring opinion was about free speech. Both are about the 1st.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        No, the majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's active animus towards the bake shop's religious beliefs during their proceedings, during which they compared his beliefs to defending slavery or the Holocaust. It's entirely possible a more neutral proceeding would've been upheld. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/04/in-bakers-case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/0... > There is no majority that would have found for the baker absent the discriminatory comments by the commission; in fact, Kennedy strongly hints he might have gone the other way had the commissioners maintained their neutrality. By the same token, there were only two justices who would side against someone discriminating against gay customers no matter the specifics of the case.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        leereeves 8y ago
        That's just speculation. Until the Court rules differently on another case, we don't know under what circumstances they would rule that infringement on 1st Amendment rights was justified.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        It's fairly well-founded speculation. Per the opinion itself: > The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that re-quirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch joined this wording. Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that they'd have ruled for Colorado. We've got plenty of evidence that religious freedom is not absolute when it comes to discrimination. You can't refuse to employ black people or Jews because your religious beliefs forbid it, for example.

ceejayoz 8y ago

You'll find that two of nine justices writing a concurring opinion doesn't constitute anywhere near a majority.

leereeves 8y ago
And you'll find, if you read my first comment more carefully, that I said "First Amendment", not free speech. The 1st protects both free speech and freedom of religion. Both are about being able to practice and express our own beliefs without the government forcing us to do otherwise.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  As various anti-discrimination laws have survived SCOTUS challenges, it's pretty clear it's not quite so simple as just the First Amendment here. Per the majority opinion: > But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    The majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's failure to respect freedom of religion. They also acknowledged the free speech argument, without ruling on it either way, while the concurring opinion was about free speech. Both are about the 1st.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      No, the majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's active animus towards the bake shop's religious beliefs during their proceedings, during which they compared his beliefs to defending slavery or the Holocaust. It's entirely possible a more neutral proceeding would've been upheld. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/04/in-bakers-case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/0... > There is no majority that would have found for the baker absent the discriminatory comments by the commission; in fact, Kennedy strongly hints he might have gone the other way had the commissioners maintained their neutrality. By the same token, there were only two justices who would side against someone discriminating against gay customers no matter the specifics of the case.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - leereeves 8y ago
        That's just speculation. Until the Court rules differently on another case, we don't know under what circumstances they would rule that infringement on 1st Amendment rights was justified.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        It's fairly well-founded speculation. Per the opinion itself: > The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that re-quirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch joined this wording. Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that they'd have ruled for Colorado. We've got plenty of evidence that religious freedom is not absolute when it comes to discrimination. You can't refuse to employ black people or Jews because your religious beliefs forbid it, for example.