“Could she have followed through on her promise to deny the pizza? Or suppose she objected on religious grounds to weddings of those who had been previously married? Could she lawfully have denied pizza to them? Or suppose she claimed a religious view that prohibited her from serving pizza to anyone whose skin color was darker than hers? Is there no limit to her ability to refuse service so long as she claims a religious basis for doing so?”
I thought Napolitano was a libertarian, and his answer should have been “yes” to each of those counterfactuals.
He asserted earlier “...that government may not aid religion, may not harm it, may not advance it and may not interfere with it.” Then he asserts that a religion may be interfered with if it is “unlawful”. I’m trying to reconcile those two assertions.
Napolitano has been establishment too long
John Stossel, also a libertarian and a proponent of homosexual marriage, is at odds with the judge. Stossel said forcing the pizzeria or bakery to provide services for something they consider immoral is a clear violation of their rights.