So far, to the best of my knowledge, both new supreme court justices have a track record of maintaining to the rule of law as written and intended to the best of their understanding.

By any means, Obergefell would need to be directly challenged to be overturned.

I think it'll become permissible to discriminate and I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing (yes, I'm a traitor to my class for saying this)

It's much harder to challenge a law than to create one.

Compare and contrast that "Special Rights" demand from the CRTL-Left

Yeah, I agree, discrimination is becoming a serious problem in several facets of American life.

Like higher education. Or job hiring.

I'm fascinated to see someone who's sincerely distraught at Trump's election

It sounds like you really think they're out to get you

Actually, I'm talking about it from the right perspective.

What do you mean?

The right to not bake a cake for a GLBT or black person

The right to not hire someone on religious grounds

I see the potential for a lot more individual liberty to discriminate on religious grounds

I'm actually not against it on principle, but the execution may be scary

Those asshats that sued the baker in CO were asshats

Go somewhere else for your cake, nitwits

How's that going to be attacked? Do you really think the supreme court is going to overturn the civil rights act? I haven't heard any serious proposals to even consider something like that.

BUT, what happens if you are the only grocer in town? The owner of the only apartment complex?

The Religious grounds wouldn't fly in court nor would sexual orientation, despite what the CTRL-Left claims, but would they have sued a Muslim Bakery for not wanting to make a custom wedding cake for a same sex couple?

What happens when those people can deny service?

Well, the cake bakers showed there is a right to deny service to GLBT

"I don't serve Jews, get out of my hospital"? Yeah, that wouldn't be great.

So this is law that will be examined over the next 5ish year or longer

@DrYuriMom Yeah, we agree there. When there's only one option and the business won't provide a standard service, there's a potential for trouble.

The Masterpiece decision is extremely narrow, it only really applies to this specific instance.

@Bookworm , exactly what will be examined now

I know the Masterpiece decision is narrow, but that's because the court was divided. Now, well it'll be interesting.

It's why I'm 10th Amendment Cat

They denied special premium services. They offered basic services that are open to anyone (Buy a cake) but any store can say no to a custom job for any number of reasons

That's a step forward I could back

Let each state experiment within some basic groundrules

Leaving it to states or lower

Yeah, I think politics has become far to nationalized and it's driving the polarization.

Consitutionality seems basically lost at this point, though

It does.

And I never thought I'd see a serious challenge to the 1st in my lifetime. But I can say the academic left really does want a hate speech exemption.

Oberfell essentially takes the feds out of it. That was important. Everything else will be examining to what extent religious freedom can allow discrimination.

I think it'll go pretty far

? Oberfell prevents states from barring marriage licenses to LGBT couples.

I do not want any new limit on 1st Amendment

That's a pretty big example of federalizing as I can tell.