Supreme Court rules in favor of "religious and philosophical" freedom

In a landmark ruling Monday, the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution when it forced Jack Phillips to make a cake for a same-sex wedding he morally opposed under the state's public accommodations law.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views in some instances protected forms of expression," the court said.

  The Hill

To me, that case was a hard one. I won't argue it either way, but I will say that, without reading the actual ruling, if that's really what the decision claims, this should open up a Pandora's box of lawsuits about "philosophical" decisions.  Should have left it at "religious" objections.  That was already a fine line.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway. UPDATE 6/4:

Kennedy and the majority left open the possibility that the Court could rule the other way, if a state commission’s deliberations met the standards of fairness and neutrality that the Colorado’s commission did not. From the decision:

Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.

[...]

For the moment, anyway, it seems that the most basic question of the case remains unresolved, stuck in a maelstrom of lower courts and administrative bodies, while both sides live to fight another day.

[...]

The decision also can be easily read as a signal from the Court’s conservative wing to conservative Christians that a more sweeping assertion of religious liberty might be out there waiting for Kennedy to retire and for the current president* to get another seat on the Court to fill. Hold your fire, they could be saying. Kennedy can’t last forever. And, since I feel safe in a assuming that the next nominee from this administration* will not be Zombie William Brennan, this decision is most significant in that it raises the stakes of the 2018 midterm elections even higher, as practically everything these days does.

  Charles P Pierce