“The court knows that the freedom of religious expression is more than worship alone,” said Carlson-Thies, reached by telephone. “But where will the court draw the line, especially with religious individuals who own businesses that deal with the general public? … That’s the mystery. Everyone knows the court needs to do something. These issues are not going away. … But it isn’t clear that everyone thinks the Supreme Court should have the last word on everything. You hear that argued on the left and the right — depending on who controls the White House.”
Carlson-Thies noted several strategic rulings — in 2018, 2023 and this summer — in which the court addressed the religious-liberty claims of individuals.
The first was Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2018, a case focusing on Jack Phillips’ claim that he could refuse, for religious reasons, to create a unique wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The 7-2 majority said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed obvious hostility to the beliefs of Phillips. The baker had offered to sell Craig and Mullins cookies, cakes and other items for their wedding reception, but not a personalized cake with artistic content celebrating their same-sex marriage.
However, Kennedy once again sidestepped First Amendment issues, stating that laws can and must “protect gay persons and gay couples,” while “religious … objections to gay marriage” are also “protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” He admitted that the “outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”
Agreed. The Supreme majority provides little or no guidance on how courts in future should balance competing claims. It's true that a ruling in the other direction would have been a terrible blow to religious freedom. But this just keeps things muddy. https://t.co/0BDvkvo7au
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) June 4, 2018