The justices settled a question left open in 2018: whether businesses open to the public and engaged in expression may refuse to serve customers based on religious convictions.

  • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    SCOTUS continues SCOTUSing.

    Ultimately, my thoughts are a bit mixed, and it really comes down to just how much leeway is given to businesses. I can understand an argument that a web site is a sufficiently creative and expressive work such that the government mandating a business take on a client is essentially compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment, and a secondary benefit is it being made abundantly clear that a gay baker wouldn’t ever have to create a “Gays are groomers” cake or anything like that. I think the real question, and something I haven’t seen much information on yet, is exactly where that line is. I’d like to think that a business owner simply refusing basic service because a customer is gay would still be something that a state can prohibit, and if not, I don’t see how that doesn’t opening up some legal room for “Whites only (because Jesus told me that in a dream)” signs - essentially legalizing any form of discrimination so long as it’s hidden under the veil of religion. I’d imagine the Court really doesn’t want to get into the business of deciding what a legitimate religion is.

    • JelloBrains@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought this is what the Supreme Court decided with the cake guy, that he didn’t have to make a cake specifically for them, but if he was selling generic cakes, wedding or not, they would be required to sell them. I could be wrong though, but that’s what I thought they went with.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That ruling was extremely narrow and decided basically on procedural technicalities. This case addressed the actual legal question.

    • n0m4n@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “I’d imagine the Court really doesn’t want to get into the business of deciding what a legitimate religion is”.

      Given the make-up of SCOTUS, a legitimate state religion IS their bias. Overturning Roe is an example of ruling for their religious bias.