"Your religion does not prohibit me from anything. It prohibits you."

[DallasNE]

61. It Seems Like The Arguments Take The Eye Off The Ball

In the latest case involving the web designer (ignore that it was based on a hypothetical) it pits the 1st Amendment against the 14th Amendment and ends up siding with the 1st Amendment. (My thinking is that the latter of the 2 Amendments should prevail because it would negate any discrepancy between the Amendments). The cake designer was an earlier decision and it was identically decided, so why was this web designer case even taken up - but I stray.

But let's go back to an earlier period and see how this decision conflicts with earlier decisions. Here I am talking about the cases where Woolworth's lunch counters refused to serve black people in the South. These recent cases appear to nullify the logic in those cases because all of these cases involve refusing to serve a class of people. If gay people can be refused service, what stops the haters from refusing service to other classes of people, such as black, Muslim, or Jewish people? Where does the Court draw the line?

These inconsistent decisions by the Court are the prime example of how far down the rabbit hole the Roberts Court has plunged. And the only way back out of the rabbit hole is to reverse direction. I see no chance of this happening with this Court.