The decision suggests that if the state can find a way to enforce their "anti-discrimination" laws without showing overt animus, they can enforce it.
[[ The decision suggests that if the state can find a way to enforce their “anti-discrimination” laws without showing overt animus, they can enforce it. ]]
Yup- exactly- The left will find a way around this narrow ruling- you watch- The case i believe should have been decided also on the fact that people can not be forced to create something, or even participate in (such as photographers) ceremonies or celebrations which celebrate practices that violate their moral conscience
Noone in the right mind believes that people who commit pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc should be able to force bakers to make cakes celebrating those horrible abominations- it’s no different with homosexuality- that practices is STILL an abomination in the sight of the Lord- no matter how ‘accepted it is’ in society
You can not compel someone to violate their moral conscience when the issue isn’t due to genetics (ie religions can’t discriminate against black people or asians, or hindhus etc- but they hsoudl be able to say no to people who make abominable lifestyle choices like homosexuality or bestiality etc-)
I was hoping the courts would have included that issue in with the first amendment issue