Not that this discussion is pivotal to my point but the court wrote that: >“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the

Not that this discussion is pivotal to my point but the court wrote that: >“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”[0] Not only is that utterly unclear, it doesn't even make a distinction between "they said something that offended Phillips' religion" and "you can't make/apply laws that are hostile to Phillips' religious viewpoint". I don't think there's a queer person in America that would perceive "vastly different outcomes" from a ruling like that. [0]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...