4 ms·

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 rulin

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.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      To justify your interpretation, you'd have to explain why the SC hasn't followed up that ruling with another ruling that establishes their standard for weighing those competing interests in such a way that the 1st amendment concerns are overcome. Such speculation was possible in June of 2018, but hard to defend now.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        Multiple reasons. First, cases take a long time to wind through this process. SCOTUS picks cases for the next year, they take months to decide and write up, and all this requires a test case to have reached them in the first place. The justices may also not yet feel comfortable enough that they know exactly where the dividing line is to take on a test case, either. Not much moves quickly in the court system. Not having a follow-up a case in the very next term isn't indicative of much.

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.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    To justify your interpretation, you'd have to explain why the SC hasn't followed up that ruling with another ruling that establishes their standard for weighing those competing interests in such a way that the 1st amendment concerns are overcome. Such speculation was possible in June of 2018, but hard to defend now.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Multiple reasons. First, cases take a long time to wind through this process. SCOTUS picks cases for the next year, they take months to decide and write up, and all this requires a test case to have reached them in the first place. The justices may also not yet feel comfortable enough that they know exactly where the dividing line is to take on a test case, either. Not much moves quickly in the court system. Not having a follow-up a case in the very next term isn't indicative of much.