5 ms·

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 Amen

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.

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.