[Brilliant]

I'm not trying to impose an ad hominem on you. Just trying to figure out if you're consistent on that point.

Looks like you are, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have a constitutional right to discriminate against blacks or Jews. Now with this case, it has done the same with gays.

Whether a single individual can discriminate is another question, of course, but we weren't dealing with a statute that governed only businesses that consisted of a single individual. Nor were we dealing with the question of who you can have in your club, or who you can be friends with.

We were dealing only with the question of whether a state can pass a special law designed to make it legal to discriminate against gays in employment practices and by landlords. The Supreme Court ruled that the state can't.

You can dislike that all you want, but that's clearly the law, and it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Court would rule as it did, given its prior decisions on discrimination.

Personally, I cannot see why Roberts should be considered "pro gay" because he defends that principle of law. And actually, he did not defend it. He merely played "Scalia" in a mock preparation for the argument.

[Shalom Israel]

the fact remains that the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have a constitutional right to discriminate

And? They also said that Americans don't own their property.

[Mulch]

"...the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have constitutional right to discriminate against blacks or Jews.

You forgot to include: woman, asians, hispanics, indians, midgets, fat people, old people, bald people, people with dandruff, people without dandruff, etc. etc. etc.