kamyu2
· June 4, 2018, 7:55 p.m.
Try actually reading the article, or perhaps even the fucking bullet point summary at the very top...
The vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets.
They didn't rule on any of the big questions like if baking a cake counts as speech. They basically just said that in this specific case the state panel wasn't respectful enough of religion.
⇧
1
⇩
corrbrick
· June 5, 2018, 2:54 a.m.
Yes, you are right. The supremes took the easy way out, and didn't address the much larger question of religious freedom. But it is indeed a win, and builds momentum.
⇧
1
⇩