[DoodleDawg]

This could have been a landmark case to bust open the fascist nature of “anti-discrimination” laws as they apply to private businesses and associations, but they won’t go there. What a tragically lost opportunity.

I think a ruling for the baker will still have the same effect of knocking down anti-discrimination laws. How do you enforce them once the Supreme Court has said you can't?

[fwdude]

How do you enforce [anti-discrimination laws]once the Supreme Court has said you can't?

Good point. But it will be more likely that the Court just might "split the baby" in the spirit of concession (as is the modern practice) and actually give the Gaystapo an unexpected victory by making them a protected group by judicial fiat, while allowing the baker to withhold services. So, the GLBTXYZ group gets special federal status, to be used for future attacks against unwilling conservatives, while a very narrow "exemption" (how I HATE that concept) allows bakers to refuse the order, perhaps being required to publish his beliefs beforehand, like the Jews were required to display Stars of David in their shop windows.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think the problem with "anti-discrimination" laws is that they were intended to protect overtly identifiable traits, like race, gender, age, handicap, etc. Once one has to inquire in order to comply, everything changes. A service provider is at the mercy of the honesty of the answer.

Things like sexual orientation, gender identity, even religion to some extent, aren't obvious in routine transactions, and we can't become a society where everyone is required to wear their color-coded star in public so that the "authorities" can sort out the winners from the losers.

-PJ