SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[mikeymikec]

I watched the play 'The Crucible' the other day, about the Salem witch trials. There's a scene where a person is being judged (in a character assassination kind of way) based on the fact that they have sometimes ploughed on Sunday and haven't been to Church every Sunday.

I'm wondering whether in the case of this baker, say anyone citing their religious belief as a means of legal discrimination against others, that it's entirely morally OK for the discriminator's complete adherence to the teachings of say The Bible (assuming they're "Christian") to be called into question. As soon as they're found not to be in 100% compliance, they lose the case. My logic being, if they're not in 100% compliance then they clearly can't cite "religious belief", but some personal custom-set of beliefs.

Disclaimer: IMO it's obviously bollocks - morally speaking - that one's beliefs should allow them to discriminate based on lawful attributes of those they discriminate against. My suggestion is an attempt to work within a system that allows limited religious discrimination.

 

[zinfamous]

This will 100% go to the supreme court and I expect more Calvinball.

and 95% chance Alito will draft his opinion arguing that the owner's right to discriminate against anyone also means that gay marriage is now banned, obviously.

That's kinda how Citizens United happened.

 

[Brainonska511]

Waiting to see how SCOTUS twists this to say that states don't have the right to do this after Dobbs ...

Probably make up evidence like the high school football coach case.