CDZ Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays

[task0778]

“Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)?”

The harm manifest in that such discriminatory practices are disruptive to the local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The Commerce Clause affords state and local governments the authority to regulate markets to ensure their stability (see, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US (1964), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Allowing businesses open to the general public to refuse to accommodate patrons solely because of the patrons’ race, religion, or sexual orientation is clearly disruptive to a local market, threatens the stability of that market, and warrants states and local jurisdictions to regulate against such disruption.

I do not believe that one baker's refusal to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple will be that disruptive to the Denver economy. What nonsense. It'd be different if everybody was doing it, like it used to be in the south when racial discrimination was rampant. But that ain't the case here, it's only one baker and he's willing to offer any of his other products other than wedding cake for same-sex marriage. Somehow I'm not seeing stability being threatened in the marketplace.

 

[task0778]

“It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down.”

Wrong.

The gay couple did no such thing; in fact, they never had the opportunity to discuss the specifics of the cake design with the baker.

Wrong. One thing has nothing to do with the other. You don't know whether the gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down, I think they certainly did know. Quite the coincidence, don't you think? The gay couple goes to the only baker among dozens in the area that won't bake cakes for same-sex weddings. Either way, that has nothing at all to do with not discussing the details of the cake after the baker told them he wouldn't do the cake for them.

 

[task0778]

“Look, I am for gay rights…”

That’s fine – but this issue has nothing to do with ‘gay rights’ – or the rights of anyone else, for that matter.

The issue concerns only the regulatory authority of government, that citizens are required to follow just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws, and that religious beliefs, perceptions, or ‘conscience’ are not ‘justifications’ to ignore or violate just and proper laws such as those which prohibit discrimination regarding public accommodations.

For those who oppose public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation, your recourse is through the political process, not judicial; petition your state or local government to amend those laws to allow business owners to discriminate against gay patrons.

Laws are challenged all the time in courts, PA laws and every other law. At some point another case will come before the SCOTUS and they'll rule one way or another and the chances are that legislation may be created or changed accordingly. And nobody is going to allow business owners to discriminate against gays or anyone else, except possibly for cases where other Constitutional Rights are in play.

 

[2aguy]

“But to [the business owner] it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope.”

Business owners are required to follow all manner of necessary, proper regulatory policies, such as paying their employees a minimum wage or complying with health codes for businesses that sell food items – public accommodations laws are no different.

Consequently, there is no ‘slippery slope’ – just a slippery slope fallacy.

For those who oppose public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation, your recourse is through the political process, not judicial; petition your state or local government to amend those laws to allow business owners to discriminate against gay patrons.



Except for that little thing called the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion....except for that...right? And forcing someone to violate their 1st Amendment Rights is an issue for the courts.....not to mention those public accomodation laws need to be struck down too..... as they are essentially slavery by another name...

 

[sparky]

“Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays”

Private individuals, religious organizations, and private entities not functioning as businesses open to the general public are at liberty to discriminate against gay Americans, to engage in speech hateful to gay Americans, and to not associate with gay Americans.

The concept of freedom of religion and freedom of speech applies solely to government, and the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private persons and organizations; only government is therefore prohibited from discriminating against gay Americans with regard to denying homosexuals access to, and the benefit of, state laws and measures.

It is consequently wrong to refer to ‘free speech’ or ‘religious liberty’ with regard to public accommodations laws, as neither are in play.

Businesses open to the general public are subject to all manner of necessary, proper regulatory policies, including public accommodations laws – none of which ‘violate’ the religious liberty of business owners.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that citizens may not use ‘religious beliefs’ as ‘justification’ to ignore just and proper regulatory laws, or as an ‘excuse’ to avoid punitive measures when that regulatory policy has been violated.

Again, the problem is ignorance of the law, not pubic accommodations measures.

what's your take on this Clay?>>>

Mullins and Craig said Phillips was using his Christian faith as pretext for unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Phillips' lawyers said his cakes are an art form - a "temporary sculpture" - and being forced to create one to commemorate a gay wedding would violate his constitutional rights to free speech and expression and free exercise of religion.

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

~S~

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays”

Private individuals, religious organizations, and private entities not functioning as businesses open to the general public are at liberty to discriminate against gay Americans, to engage in speech hateful to gay Americans, and to not associate with gay Americans.

The concept of freedom of religion and freedom of speech applies solely to government, and the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private persons and organizations; only government is therefore prohibited from discriminating against gay Americans with regard to denying homosexuals access to, and the benefit of, state laws and measures.

It is consequently wrong to refer to ‘free speech’ or ‘religious liberty’ with regard to public accommodations laws, as neither are in play.

Businesses open to the general public are subject to all manner of necessary, proper regulatory policies, including public accommodations laws – none of which ‘violate’ the religious liberty of business owners.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that citizens may not use ‘religious beliefs’ as ‘justification’ to ignore just and proper regulatory laws, or as an ‘excuse’ to avoid punitive measures when that regulatory policy has been violated.

Again, the problem is ignorance of the law, not pubic accommodations measures.

what's your take on this Clay?>>>

Mullins and Craig said Phillips was using his Christian faith as pretext for unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Phillips' lawyers said his cakes are an art form - a "temporary sculpture" - and being forced to create one to commemorate a gay wedding would violate his constitutional rights to free speech and expression and free exercise of religion.

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

~S~

That the commissioners failed to follow the proper procedure concerning the appeal, having nothing to do with the issue of ‘religious liberty’:

“Craig and Mullins sought a cake to celebrate their wedding and, even though Phillips regularly sold wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, they were outright denied because of their sexual orientation. In fact, Craig and Mullins did not even have an opportunity to discuss any specific cake designs before being turned away by Phillips. Had Craig and Mullins been a heterosexual couple, Phillips would have sold them a wedding cake. Thus, the denial of service to Craig and Mullins, unlike the denials of service to Jack, was based on a protected characteristic — their sexual orientation – and was a clear violation of CADA. The commission’s ruling was correct.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/symposium-the-masterpiece-ruling-calls-for-increased-vigilance-of-discrimination-in-the-marketplace/#more-270984

And the Court would have likely upheld the commission’s ruling had the proper procedure been followed.

That’s why the issue doesn’t concern ‘rights’ – religious, gay, or First Amendment – it concerns laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

Indeed, most states and local jurisdictions have no sexual orientation provisions in their public accommodations laws; business owners in those states and jurisdictions are at liberty to discriminate against gay patrons with impunity, no ‘rights’ having been ‘violated.’

And again: that’s why this is a political – not legal/civil rights – issue; residents in jurisdictions where sexual orientation provisions exist in their public accommodations laws can seek to have those laws repealed or amended to allow business owners to discriminate against gay Americans.

 

[sparky]

So would i be correct in interprteing Mr Phillips as being within the 'law' vs. his rights to impart his religious beliefs upon his biz patrons here Clay?

~S~

 

[Darkwind]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

If you can't work that out, I'm sorry.

It's not really upholding the importance of religious conscience, though, is it?

In fact, it is.

 

[Darkwind]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

The early public accommodation laws addressed a very real and serious issue. Travel was made nearly impossible, in some parts of the country, for blacks, because they could not find restaurants, gas stations, motels, and other necessary facilities that were willing to do business with them. It's easy enough to image the harm; imagine being a traveler, far from home, in an unfamiliar place, your car is almost out of fuel, and you're hungry, and tired. There are gas stations nearby, but none of them will sell you any fuel. There are motels, but none will let you stay there. Restaurants, but none that will let you eat there.

That's a serious enough issue to justify government stepping in and telling these facilities that they can't refuse to do business with you, just because of the color of your skin, or any other criteria that do not relate to the transactions that they might want to decline.


Recent conflicts over “civil rights” and “discrimination” are not at all comparable.

First, nobody is going to be harmed by being denied access to a homosexual mockery of a wedding cake, the way one would be harmed by being denied access to food, lodging, fuel,and other genuine necessities.

Second, homosexuality truly is evil and immoral, and decent people absolutely have a right not to be compelled to give approval or support for it. That doesn't necessarily mean that I approve of refusing to provide basic, generic goods and services to someone, just because they are homosexual; but if a homosexual demands goods or services that specifically celebrate his perversion, then, no, nobody ought to be compelled to provide that.

I think you are adding more meaning than what is intended. It isn't a matter of being harmed by being denied a tangible asset. A wedding cake is not the be all, end all, of a wedding. But if there is no one else to provide the tangible asset, then it becomes an issue.

 

[Darkwind]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

Because a business owner’s conscience is not ‘violated’ by obeying a just and proper law; he might subjectively and incorrectly believe that’s the case, but as a fact of law it is not.

YOU are not qualified to determine what is a "just and proper law". Understand?

 

[Pellinore]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

I agree with you that this is a thorny issue, a real duel between two basic fundamentals of American jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to have to make the SC's decision. Someone will lose. Hopefully the SC will keep avoiding it until society sorts out an acceptable compromise for both sides. I believe the gays deserve as much right to be treated equally as the baker does to freely practice his religion.

Where I have a question for you, is why you think the gay couple went looking for trouble? Just because there are other bakeries in the area? Did it occur to you that it may have just happened that they liked the look of the place or some of the cakes he had created that were (possibly) posted on line or in his window? Maybe it had easier parking or was close to the reception site or their home. Or someone had mentioned it as being a great bakery? They didn't record it or bring in friends as "witnesses." I think it is as likely that it was just one of those things that happened, and over the past few years while this made its way through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me if the gay couple have wished they had walked into a different bakery, too.

There are coincidences in life, to be sure. BUT - it stretches credulity a little bit to believe that these guys just happened to walk into the one bakery in the area that is run by a Christian who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. There are literally dozens of other bakeries in the area, none of which seem to have a problem baking the cake. I cannot believe that the gay community in that area does not know about Phillips (the Christian baker). Wouldn't you think the gay couple would avoid such a person for a wedding cake of all things. You're celebrating a wedding, for God's sake; do you want to stir up trouble on that occasion of all times to do something political? And the gay couple did not have to make a federal case out of it, there were other avenues; boycotts and protests, and the like for starters. I am just not believing it was all an unfortunate coincidence. Frankly, I doubt very much that the gay couple is one bit sorry, I think they contrived the whole thing in advance to strike a blow for gay rights.

The "There are plenty of others, go to one of those" argument is just as pointless now as it was in the 1950s, when black people had their choice of plenty of other diners at which to get lunch.

 

[Syriusly]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

And if the Baker had refused to bake a cake for a mixed race couple? Or for a Jewish couple?

Should they have just looked for another bakery?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.

In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.

In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Exactly. However Christians seem to think otherwise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.

In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Exactly. However Christians seem to think otherwise.

True.

And the last time anyone checked, Christianity is just another religion – no better or worse than any other religion.

 

[2aguy]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

And if the Baker had refused to bake a cake for a mixed race couple? Or for a Jewish couple?

Should they have just looked for another bakery?

Yes.

 

[2aguy]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.

It would be held as fine, up to the point you actually violated the Rights of Black Americans......just as Islam is fine, even though it calls for the death of Jews and other infidels.....until they actually do it, they can claim anything...

 

[sparky]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.

In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Which appears to have been ruled against by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The case pitted gay rights against religious liberty.

&&&&&&&&&&

The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans

So now if i'm reading this ruling right, any Muslim biz owner can refuse Christian patrons, Jewish doctors can refuse Pally patients, and visa versa

Essentially the SCOTUS has taken >>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,and turned it into >>>Congress shall respect any law any whack job religmo creates

~S~

 

[frigidweirdo]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.

In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Which appears to have been ruled against by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The case pitted gay rights against religious liberty.

&&&&&&&&&&

The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans

So now if i'm reading this ruling right, any Muslim biz owner can refuse Christian patrons, Jewish doctors can refuse Pally patients, and visa versa

Essentially the SCOTUS has taken >>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,and turned it into >>>Congress shall respect any law any whack job religmo creates

~S~

As far as I can tell the Supreme Court didn't rule on religion, but on the bias of the state.