I interpreted the phrase in a different way. I thought the judges were saying regardless of whether or not you operate your business from a storefront location. I was wondering if the plaintiffs tried to say that because the photographer didn’t have an actual store front location, they didn’t have grounds to refuse the photography.
It’s strange wording for sure.
i htink the key phrase was “It means that government officials must allow creative professionals —without storefronts anywhere in the city and state— the freedom to make their own decisions about which ideas they will use their artistic expression to promote.”
It —seems to indicate— that if they have a storefront- then they aren’t allowed the ‘freedom to make their own decisions about’ what they wish to promote in regards to their ‘artistic expression’
It seems to me that the ruling allows people without storefronts the ability to pick and choose what they wish to promote in regards to their ‘artistic expression’, but not those who own storefronts
I dunno- liberals are masters at twisting legal definitions around until they are no longer recognizable as objective truths