3 ms·
1. That case ended with the conclusion that the bakery could deny service because it would otherwise be “compelled speech” 2. Political beliefs are not a prote
by chillacy 6y ago
1. That case ended with the conclusion that the bakery could deny service because it would otherwise be “compelled speech”
2. Political beliefs are not a protected class like sexual orientation (should they be?)
Given that, this seems like even more of an open and shut case: businesses have a right to decide who they serve.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> That case ended with the conclusion that the bakery could deny service because it would otherwise be “compelled speech” No, it ended with the conclusion that the particular state panel that rules against the baker did so with impermissible religious animus against his beliefs, and therefore the ruling against him was unconstitutional. “Compelled speech" was what a broad political group wanted the Court to rule on, but it's not what it did rule on, instead issuing a much more limited decision that dodged the broad issue almost entirely.