Replies

I fear this ruling was too narrow. I would love to see a ruling that made plain that a person cannot be compelled to enter into a contract, no reason or defense needed. As you pointed out that is akin to “forced labor”. That would give the broadest protection to the greatest number.

To me it is a no brainer that forcing a person to use his artistic talents contrary to his beliefs violates his First Amendment rights. I see no compelling State interest to place protection of gays from discrimination ahead of those rights. But that is what will be argued, I bet. “Tolerance Hell. Lick Our Boots.”

I also hope it will be shown that gay couples have not suffered any harm from the actions of the florists and bakers and the rest. That is perhaps the most spurious finding of various rulings against them. Such findings are a clear attempt to bankrupt these businesses by crippling them financially. They also act to keep other businesses in line.

It will be a long slog. We both know the ultimate goal is to silence (in the public square) Christians who uphold Biblical teachings on morality. If refusing speech is harmful to gays how much more harmful is speech itself?

The following statement by the majority makes it clear that this wasn’t a solid win for Christians- it states that the state ‘could have presented their side without bias’ and intimated that the state could have probably prevailed-

“The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed.”

That makes it sound like Phillips very well could have lost had the state just not been poopie heads about their position and bias-

like you said- this aint over by a long shot- but it doesn’t look good for future cases- not impossible, but not as strong as we’d like unfortunately