4 ms·
I’m surprised they took the case. It seems like a carbon copy of the cake decorator case that set this precedent. > But the Supreme Court now says artists cann
by awb 3y ago
I’m surprised they took the case. It seems like a carbon copy of the cake decorator case that set this precedent.
> But the Supreme Court now says artists cannot be compelled to express messages against their religious beliefs.
How is this conclusion different from the conclusion they reached in the cake decorator case?
(Also in CO if I’m not mistaken)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kyrra 3y agoYou misunderstand the baker case. All that case ruled was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commision was harassing Masterpiece Cakeshop, and that they needed to stop. It's why as soon as the case was over, the baker was sued again by someone else. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Majority_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- MattGaiser 3y agoIn the cake case, they ended up not really ruling on the issue and focusing on the specific treatment of the baker by the commission rather than the broader rights concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...