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.

1st Amemndment is life

You're an interesting person

I can see why you class yourself a centrist

Me neither. Absolute freedom of speech can never be abridged nor abrogated for a free and equal society. Anything else risks soft takeover.

The first Amendment is what allows us to say something is wrong or right, the Second Amendment is what allows us to defend ourselves from those that would take away the First.

My understanding. The baker in question did deny to make a custom wedding cake due to religion, he instead offered his generic options of what he had in store.
It is on par with the law that you can not deny customers on race, religion, etc, for goods available to the general public.
Is that the law they want to change, or am I misunderstanding your concerns ?
@DrYuriMom

The absolutist terms of the amendments means it really bugs me when we legislate caveats into them and pretend it's fine.

Yeah, I hope you feel welcome around here 10th Amendment. This can be a kinda brutal place and people can get heated. But I think people aren't as angry as they can come across.

@4AM_critter 🐉 , I'm totally comfortable with the decision within the limits as ruled

Like, if the state punishes me for lying about another person, that's a breach of the 1st amendment.

Again, the litigants were asshats

Classic test case.

I never quite understood why you'd want a custom cake from someone who clearly doesn't share your joy

Did you hear they took the same bakery to court again shortly thereafter?

It's like asking for an inferior product

It had nothing to do with cakes and marriages. It had everything to do with pushing legal change via court decisions. Again, the litigants were classic test case activists with well-funded political legal groups behind them.

They ordered cakes which were intentionally outside the pale.

@pratel the state found another complaintant to file a complaint so they could go after the bakery

And yes, to whoever above mentioned it, I am an example of one of those who spent the night of the election two years ago taking Xanax and drinking alcohol...at the same time. In my professional capacity I DO NOT recommend this!

Thank you for clarification. My follow up question is. The law that says you may not hire, sell products or rent based on religion, race, sexuality etc. would that law be reinterpreted ?