7-2 decision

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-06-04/u-s-supreme-court-throws-out-gay-bias-finding-against-baker#click=https://t.co/MoKGNAnUet

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180297)

and why I am the only person in the world asking this question???

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180351)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180614)

The narrowness has nothing to do with the vote count, it has to do with what precedent it sets. In this case it sets a very narrow precedent based on particularized facts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36182239)

I don't think that's how the case will be read though, still working on it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180352)

So this turned out to be an admin law case?

--

Gorsuch's articulation of the principle:

"[W]hen the government fails to act neutrally toward the free exercise of religion, it tends to run into trouble. Then the government can prevail only if it satisfies strict scrutiny, showing that its restrictions on religion both serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993)."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180368)

did not carry the day when this Court affirmed the right of

white supremacists to burn a 25-foot cross, Virginia v.

Black, 538 U. S. 343 (2003); conduct a rally on Martin

Luther King Jr.’s birthday, Forsyth County v. Nationalist

Movement, 505 U. S. 123 (1992); or circulate a film featuring

hooded Klan members who were brandishing weapons

and threatening to “‘Bury the niggers,’” Brandenburg v.

Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 446, n. 1 (1969) (per curiam).

Get em Clarence!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180544)

The answer may SURPRISE you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180582)

Religious objections "do not allow business owners to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law"

Sounds like future cases all go against the bakers if the commissions are nicer about it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180585)

protected persons

protected persons

protected persons

protected persons

protected persons

protected persons

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36180621)

fondant dick is tasty

when the patron's nose has a hook

you can't deny him pastry

if you cost him psychotherapy

the case will turn out 6-3

if you live your whole life by the Book

then you'll have a--

--GORSUCH--

WELL BREAK IT DOWN HIRSCH'

LET ME SEE YOU BACK IT UP

LET THIS FACT PATTERN GO

AND BRING A BETTER ONE BACK UP

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36181409)

same kind of reasoning libs use to say trump's travel ban is unconstitutional bc trump said he hates towelheads

only hope to save scotus is for roberts & kennedy to DIE before trump leaves office so he can replace those limpwristed FAGGOTS with REAL CONSERVATIVES. alittto too for that matter

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36181708)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36183395)

I like Roberts, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36184288)

damn, everyone wanted a say in this

how do you write this out numerically?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36181760)

We need one involving photogs/video, caterers, DJ's/string quartets, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3993327&forum_id=2#36182551)