06-04-2018, 11:42 PM
I think SCOTUS ruled the way they did because it would be extremely hard to prove religious beliefs as a reason to not sell to someone.
Where is the line drawn?
A person who is deeply religious but doesn't go to church has no way to prove they are deeply religious.
A person who isn't deeply religious and is just a bigot can claim they are religious.
What about a bakery knowingly makes a cake for a couple for the couples third marriage who committed adultery on their previous spouses?
For the state to prove someone doesn't have religious convictions is impossible.
These cases need to be handled on a case by case basis.
Where is the line drawn?
A person who is deeply religious but doesn't go to church has no way to prove they are deeply religious.
A person who isn't deeply religious and is just a bigot can claim they are religious.
What about a bakery knowingly makes a cake for a couple for the couples third marriage who committed adultery on their previous spouses?
For the state to prove someone doesn't have religious convictions is impossible.
These cases need to be handled on a case by case basis.
