It's weird. Don't they usually declare the law unconstitutional, rather than give an exemption to the law? WTF. This precedent is gonna get misused in the future to enact unconstitutional laws..
I'm not a lawyer, but when a law goes against the constitution, they usually declare the law unconstitutional and move on. In this case, it seems as the SC court is saying although it's unconstitutional, since the law says it's ok, hey, it's ok.
Is that a man or a woman? He needs a haircut
Why doesn't he just spill the beans?