Maxosaurus-rex on 04 June 2018
| Teeqoz said: From wikipedia: "The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.[29] Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Kennedy stated that "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".[30][31]" Unless I'm misunderstanding (and perhaps my memory of how the US justice system works is flawed), this ruling isn't of the same type as the supreme court rulings that sets presedence for how the law is interpreted in future cases - it only relates to how this specific case was handled by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Just thought I should add this. |
You are exactly right
