SCOTUS Rules About Colorodo Baker

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 05:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I think they had to, given the way the Colorado court handled the case. My understanding is the the gay couple could have purchased a ready-made cake, so they were not being refused service. They just could not compel the "artist" to make gay art.

Interesting how the Baker's case is founded upon an appeal to free speech--artistic free speech.
Art alters the nature of all manner of otherwise illegal exchanges. E.g., prostitution is illegal everywhere but Nevada, but paying people for sex in front of a camera is legal because it is "art" is legal in many states.

They didn't make a judgement call on that. They touched on the fact that you could make the argument of artistic expression and religious beliefs, but they then acknowledged that the argument could then be expanded to essentially deny any public accommodation to gay people. They reaffirmed that the state does have the ability to restrict the 1st amendment if they can make an argument for it being in their interest to prevent discrimination.

They just settled whether or not the commission in Colorado treated him fairly, which they did not. They had a clear bias against him the whole time because of his religion. Kagan and Breyer start their concurring opinion that stating that one cannot use religion to discriminate in public accommodations, but then stated that the state cannot show hostility towards one religion.