My religion can now discriminate against all christians, for example, ... or apparently any other religion, person or entity.

to be brought, and a more final decision still to be rendered. Under the circumstances the best that could happen barring a ruling against the baker.

Battle is on for control of the senate. The Republicans can lose the house and still win the war. The senate ratifies appointments to high courts, and it's very likely Trump may appoint a second justice.

Not truth and honesty?

... and now anyone will feel they can use claims of "religious freedom" to nullify ANY law.

the Commission used. And the Court ruling also seemed to turn on the fact that this happened pre-2012 under different circumstances. so the decision may not be as impactful as it seems.

I'll need to read through it more thoroughly, but that's my initial read.

But, based on the fact that I misunderstood it (and was furious) I'm certain that there are others who also misunderstood the ruling and are DELIGHTED. Those folks will use this as an excuse to amplify their religion-based hatred of "other" groups different from themselves.

They jump to the end to see which side prevailed, assume "winners" and "losers" without bothering to read, much less analyze the case and then hype it up and set an inaccurate narrative.

The minute I saw the breakdown of the decision - that it was 7-2 and Breyer and Kagan voted with the majority, I knew it wasn't as simple as they claimed it was.

That's why the Justices write opinions. Too bad so many of the journalists covering and discussing these cases don't bother to read them before trying to tell us what they mean.

Basically, the Supreme kicked it back down to Colorado State with the instructions: Do it again (if needed), and do it EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, only next time, don't be legal dicks about it, and everything will be fine.

The courts conclusion was that the overt hostility of the Colorado supreme court directed at the Baker was unacceptable as a reason not to agree with him, and they said so. The religious loons think this is a win because they don't know how to read, apparently...or theyd be all kinds of pissed at this decision, for the legit reason that it didn't do a damn thing to further The Cause.

"We can't rent to a gay person due to our religious beliefs"
"We can't hire a gay person due to our religious beliefs"
It's not about a cake.

" We won't rent to you, you go to a synagogue..."
" We don't rent to unmarried women..."
Slippery & getting a layer of crisco on the slope.

And that 2 liberal judges helped do this is shameful!

Thank you at least to Justice Ginsburg and Sotomayor! You two at least cared!

The court did not find that the baker had a right to discriminate. Instead, it said the Commission approached its decision in the wrong way. The Court found that the commission showed a "hostility" to the baker's religious beliefs and that was impermissible under previously established law. But it did not rule that the baker was justified in denying service to the gay couple. The Court also noted that this case arose in 2012 when the state did not recognize gay marriage so the context and environment for the baker's decision was very different than it would be today and that should have been taken into account.

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

if it were truly a nothingburger or little more than that, they likely wouldn't have taken the case at all. usually when the supreme court bothers with hearing a case, they're hoping they can provide some clarity for the lower courts on the issue, or at least a part of it.

granted, sometimes they opt to hear a case in that hope, and it just doesn't pan out that way, but usually they're hoping to provide at least some clarity.


my view is that they will expand on this case in later cases. in particular, they will try to flesh out a framework for how the government must "respect" those "sincere religious beliefs" when it imposes regulations or decides cases and so on.

i think those later cases will be some decisions that give some truly bad results, but they will do it leaning on this case, which incorrectly (imho) determined that a bigotry-based desire to cause harm to others can be deemed a "sincere religious belief" and then somehow merit "respect" by the government.

in other words, the more concrete damage will come from later cases, but they will do so by building on the error in this case.

And sorry for the late reply. I took a few days off politics after the ruling.