Kagan and Breyer's names w/ the majority, so I knew there was more to the story.

I reacted instantly to this. I did not understand what I read apparently. Thank you.

When did constitutionally guaranteed rights become subordinate to a religious opinion?

That sounds like a real "Sharia Law" to me.

It ruled on due process; another "constitutionally guaranteed right".

"a future case built strictly on the issue of asserted religious rights could lead to a different result?"

Are you saying THEN the Supreme Court will uphold the rejection of religious supremacy? No worries?

If your opinion is that the COURT will never stand up against religious discrimination, then there's no point in getting upset about this ruling, since you believed it was going to happen anyway.

I don't know where you came up with the opinion that I anticipate religious supremacy over our individual rights. My hope is that the Supreme Court will uphold our individual rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, and not allow some kind of religious test (like Sharia Law, which conservatives freak out about) to determine what rights are exempted.

State-sanctioned discrimination based on religious belief is at best historically regressive policy, harking back to Jim Crow and 'separate but equal' judicial rulings.

This is a slippery slope. You should BE upset!

You should, before you deliver an opinion on it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

I can't have or express my uninformed, ignorant opinion - 'cause I stoopid?

You can have an opinion, but an informed one is usually better than an uninformed one.

I like to know I am permitted to have an opinion, too!

The court only held that the state commission did not handle the case neutrally.

religion-based discrimination?

This is called the "eroding of our rights."

The commission is a judicial body, and all parties are entitled to neutral consideration. The court held they didn't do that. Read the concurring opinion of liberal Justice Kagan. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf at p. 19.

……good to know. Thanks.

Perhaps they were looking at the right thing to do.

Why isn't anyone telling me to read Ginsburg's very clear opinion?

You are an intelligent adult who's capable of reading and understanding the nuances. Don't rely on someone else's summary if you want to understand what the court did. The media tried to explain it in headlines and it didn't work.

after oral arguments this is literally the best outcome we could hope for. Not only was the statement of the commissioner mentioned as a limiting fact so was the time the case took place. The clear implication is that the vote would be different now.

where the decision was reversed.

It is what it is. There's no way I am telling the Supreme Court they made a good decision!

There's no way discrimination should be allowed to stand!

that 4 Justices were certain to vote for the baker, one was nearly certain to, and an additional 2 had some concerns. Given that, I am glad we got such a narrowly tailored decision. Most state commissions won't have people saying outrageously anti religious things like what was said in this case.

It looks like the 'right' is beginning to hold sway over the Court - religious discrimination, abortion denied where it is legal - but if you all think this is merely a technicality, I hope you don't slip on that proverbial slope.

As a general matter, you don't go to the substance of the opinion if the process by which you reached that substance was flawed.

did a good summary. It sort of skirted the issue while not going into enough detail to set a precedent for future cases which is likely to happen. They asked, "Where do you draw the line?". The wedding flowers, the music, the wedding invitations, etc will still be judged for having "decency" or not.

as it's being made out to be. Kagan's concurring opinion explains it well, I think. The reason for the decision was only that the state commission did not act neutrally as they were required to do. While I don't agree with the actual result, the court "limited its analysis to the reasoning of the commission." The text of the decision is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

in the live commentary:

This was a procedure case, not a right to a wedding cake case.

The local paper carried a summary of the court's decision -- a summary that was clear, well-written, and accurate, even as to some of the legal nuances.

I was shocked.

This is NOT a substantive ruling.

Supreme Court rules narrowly for baker to refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple.

Link to tweet

because I beleive that refusing serving lgbt will prove to be bad for business. I can already see the establishments that follow the practice of this bakery to be listed as discriminatory, pooor yelp reviews asssure. More importantly, I do not want to be served by a baker who is anti-gay just because he/she is forced to do so. I want to make sure I am aware of their beliefs so my money won’t be spent on their services and hopefulyl lgbt will follow suit. I am so sick of media sensationalizing everything.

... but this one was clearly based on procedural issues, and not handing out blank cheques for discrimination.

-- Mal

the ruling would have gone the other way

I'm not aware of any case where someone refused to sell guns to a gay person on account of a religious belief that God doesn't want gay people to have guns, and then went to a state civil rights commission which didn't give them an unbiased hearing relative to their religious belief that they didn't have to sell guns to gay people.

I meant if someone claimed a religious right to not sell guns it would be tossed quickly

That's why it's not a good idea to assume anything about a pending case. In any event, this one was decided on procedural grounds and did not address the substantive question of whether the baker could refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Sorry for my not too well thought out snarky sarcastic comment.

You are aware of conscientious objectors, yes? (Since no one is forced to sell guns, refusing to bear arms in the military is about as close as I can get.)

The extreme right will read this thing as some sort of landmark “it’s still okay to discriminate agaiins people on grounds of orientation” ruling.

They evidently aren't open to "the public," since it would mean having customers who hold different religious beliefs.
Is this how American businesses want to operate now? I don't think so!

A nice summary from Twitter account @popehat:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

from the Colo CRC. One member was obviously biased against "religion" from his comments. Therefore, the CRC did not give the baker a fair and unbiased hearing. Think of it as how juror misconduct can affect the verdict in a criminal trial.

Nina Tottenberg added some additional detail on the concurring and dissenting opinions. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, but agreed with much of Kennedy's opinion. There were 5 concurring opinions that dissented from much of Kennedy's majority opinion.