First Impressions From #MasterpieceCakeshop Arguments At SCOTUS

Mark Stern, reporter for Slate, offers his first impressions after attending the SCOTUS arguments today regarding Colorado baker Jack Phillips who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple for their wedding.

According to Stern, things may not look promising for the good guys.

Just got out of arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop. I think the anti-gay baker wins 5-4.

Kennedy doesn’t seem to agree that refusing to serve a same-sex wedding is inherently anti-gay discrimination. And he said Colorado has been “neither tolerant nor respectful” to the baker’s “religious beliefs.”

Kennedy did suggest that a baker who put an anti-gay sign in his window would create “an affront to the gay community.” But then he implied that Colorado is discriminating against Christian bakers.

Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch all obviously supported the anti-gay baker. Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer were extremely skeptical of his position.

I only see one way progressives win: Kennedy says compelled cake-baking isn’t speech, but religious discrimination may have infected this case. Then remand for further findings on free exercise.

I think there is a decent chance that there are 5 votes for this resolution. But I also think it’s more likely that 5 justices find a reason to rule for the baker.

David Badash, at The New Civil Rights Movement, posted this on Facebook:

It looks possible, even likely, LGBT civil rights will lose in today’s SCOTUS case. The is bad, not only for the LGBT community but for all minorities, and women.

Those who voted for Trump, Stein, Johnson, or wrote in someone other than Clinton, esp. in battleground states, helped put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. A Clinton win would have put a progressive on the Court, and we would have won this case.

If people who believe in equality lose this case, so many in America will suffer. This is what happens in a deeply divided society where every single vote is critical.
Go ahead, come at me.