+55

Although I do not know if considering this could have affected things related to that cake maker case but I want to point out that the original purpose of that related law or the beginning root purpose of such laws may have not been to give minorities the luxury of forced acceptance but instead to protect them from the hardship of refusal.

+54

I wonder if those judges will later author a book titled Gymnastic of The Judiciary. Anyway I intend to think about the point deduction related to that cake maker case in Colorado.  

+53

Continuing from the preceding post:

However, shouldn't taking how the process of interest balancing was implemented for the validity of the end result, be used when you try to guess that validity from far not when you have the argument and even the arguing parties available for you to decide? Where else did the court use its decision making power to invalidate the result of an earlier process arguing insufficiency of that process while it has the argument available for it to decide the question of the validity of that same end result itself? The opinion of the court did not say anything about why it could not do that. All the talk about hostility to religion, while maybe gone after on a different ground,  matter only for the issue of constitutional freedom of religion in as much as it led to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Otherwise, the process itself does not matter in that regard.

Like I said earlier, I do not feel okay with unneeded forcing of somebody to violate his religion or beliefs but this is about the role of the court as merely applying the laws at hand.

+52

A little while ago I wrote a post under the number above severely criticizing the Supreme Court opinion on that Cake maker case (assuming no compromise is accepted on its rule as merely applying the law). But apparently I missed something making more sense than I took from what it said. Here is the simple thing which in my view the court did not sufficiently point out but would have made the opinion look to many readers like me, less strange. I also have been wondering about the difficulty in applying the religion clause of the First Amendment. It seems as if a big part of that is done through an interest balancing approach for related laws on the religious freedom of a person versus the interest of the state. It appears that in order to do that at least some laws related to the issue are not judged for constitutional conformity in their general form but instead until they are applied and that is why you see in the opinion how the law was applied on a specific case was taken as an indication for the validity or invalidity of the end result there.