I have heard the US Constitution trumps state laws...see gun control.
The Supreme Court has asserted the power to trump state laws despite the fact the power to do so is not delineated in the Constitution. Like Robert Bork and Justice Scalia I believe in the Constitution as written (original intent), not the “living” Constitution as interpreted at various points in time by 9 political animals in black robes.
The letter of the Constitution does not give Congress or the federal government the power to usurp state laws relating to speech, religion, assembly, and the press it only prohibits Congress from infringing on those rights. Despite the letter of the Constitution, the 9 political animals in black robes in our time have upheld the Patriot Act allowing Congress and the federal government to spy on American citizens and hold them without due process of law. This demonstrates the danger of allowing “interpretation” of what is clearly stated in the Constitution.
It is only a matter of time before the balance of power on the Court shifts completely, and permanently to a progressive majority. When that happens, it is almost certain the Court will interpret the term “militia” in the 2nd Amendment to mean the armed forces, national guard and law enforcement thereby removing the right to bear arms from the general population. We can also expect hate speech laws to be upheld by a progressive majority court as well as limitations on religious expression (particularly for Christians) and state control of speech on the internet and public airwaves.
Once a society moves from rule by the law as written to law as interpreted, the law will be manipulated to suit the agenda of the dominant political element.
Even though the Supreme Court has usurped the power to trump the decisions of state courts, in this particular case I can’t see the current Supremes ruling the baker’s religious convictions allow him to refuse to sell his wares to homosexuals. The politics of today being what they are.