Well, yeah. This whole business vs religion issue is an amazingly compact can of worms that no one really wants to touch. So they keep shuffling it around. At some point, someone is going to get hurt, die, etc from some decision by a business like this and people are going to turn it into a legal and media circus. At that point, it will be a landmark decision and we'll have our precedent. I suspect, especially if that happens in the next couple of years, that it will go in a way that a lot of more liberal people are going to scream about.
Well, yeah. This whole business vs religion issue is an amazingly compact can of worms that no one really wants to touch. So they keep shuffling it around. At some point, someone is going to get hurt, die, etc from some decision by a business like this and people are going to turn it into a legal and media circus. At that point, it will be a landmark decision and we'll have our precedent. I suspect, especially if that happens in the next couple of years, that it will go in a way that a lot of more liberal people are going to scream about.
But this was a limited decision only. It didn't set a precedent, but just said that the baker in this particular case was discriminated against because of his religion and it overturned that particular decision by CO. There are other cases working there way up to the court later this year where they may decide to set a precedent, but in this case, it only counts for this one.