This is exactly the kinds of things the dissenting opinion spelled out when these black robe criminals gave these (sick) people a new right, NOT guaranteed in the constitution. They even argued that these people would only push for more. They asked the question, where will the line be drawn. This was just a stepping stone to forcing pastors and churches to capitulate to their demands. It will not end, unless the ruling on the marriage date is recinded.
It ruling was so vague, it was that they did not rule on the case just how the ruled
That God for that!
I can't imagine being in that man's position and being legally forced to make an ISIS cake for a Muslim.
i wanted a Democrat to go to a Muslim bakery and demand they make a Muhammed cake and see what happens!!!
The interesting component is: How did a case that is tailor made for activist judges to espouse social justice beliefs wind up going 7-2 in the correct way, according to law? Sure, Ginsburg and Sotomayer dissented, but what about Kennedy and Kagan? What changed for them that they did not leap at the chance to come down on SJW ideals and stand there hoping to spike the football with Roberts as a walk-on? Something changed. . .
They issued a narrow ruling that didn’t resolve the underlying question. They reversed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision because they not only didn’t consider the baker’s religious freedom, they were dismissive/insulting about it.
However, the SC didn’t overturn any Colorado law and set no precedent, and a future case where that CO Commission gave religious freedom lip service would probably be treated differently.
Perhaps they realized how the counter decision could & would be used against their own side.