Well, if there’s something I didn’t address on that thread, please ping me to it and I will try to answer it over there. As for discussing it on this thread, I don’t think it is relevant. This case was about a federal law.
Right - Obamacare. But the 14th A is implicated because the 14 A is always the feds strongest argument for interfering with 1st A rights. The whole "scrutiny" thing, and what you point out as an almost sure future effort to prove "compelling state interest", is based on a faulty assumption that the feds can interfere with our 1st A rights via the 14th A.