Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

Biden is aiming increasingly personal and sarcastic jabs at Trump

Eric Adams’s condescending dismissal of the ‘children’ at Columbia

Election 2024 live updates: Trump holds rallies in Wisconsin, Michigan during court break

How to make the most of Passport DC’s free embassy tours

Where to watch the Kentucky Derby in D.C.

Chance to move over .500 slips away as Nats lose to reigning champs

Biden’s internet-for-all program needs Musk’s help

The tech billionaires who helped ban TikTok want to write AI rules for Trump

Adaptive adventures are making national parks more inclusive

Man arrested at Yellowstone for allegedly kicking bison while drunk

Southwest passengers now get a $75 voucher for big flight disruptions

A murder plot that cannot be ignored: India must come clean at last

How to confront antisemitism, deal with protests — and respect free speech

Is student loan debt an emergency? Take our quiz.

France shows its anger on May Day ahead of Paris Olympics

One photo, one night in Rafah

Is Bougainville the next battleground between China and the U.S.?

Carolyn Hax: Too late to accept a decade-old apology, accidentally left unread?

I coach my son’s sports team. Why is he so disrespectful during practice?

Miss Manners: How to decline donation requests at checkout

Cat climbed into Amazon return box, found alive 630 miles away

I learned to heal my sadness by cradling dying chickens 

Brave Little Hunter is free: Baby orca escapes lagoon for open seas

Riding the rails with hobos and crust punks

In photos: Violence erupts at campuses as activists and counterprotesters clash

Drone video shows trapped baby orca in B.C. lagoon

UnitedHealth grew very big. Now, some lawmakers want to chop it down.

The new face of flooding

How celebrity tequilas are changing the very nature of tequila

Use these 6 points to say no to a college you and your kid can’t afford

How this new rule protects retirement savers from costly advice

Borrowers, don’t miss this important student loan forgiveness deadline

 Donald Trump Speaks During A Campaign Rally In Green Bay Wisconsin

See more coverage in your recommendations

Get the weekly Campaign Moment newsletter

Set alerts for major election developments

Election 2024

The Campaign Moment newsletter

Politics alerts

After the Supreme Court’s decision in <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/">Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission</a> this Monday, TMC editor in chief John Sides asked Jane S. Schacter, William Nelson Cromwell professor of law at Stanford University, questions about its political impact. Here’s what she had to say.

John Sides: So far, the commentary on this ruling suggests that its meaning is very limited. What did the justices actually do here?

Jane Schacter: The ruling is notable for its narrowness. The court was invited to issue a broad ruling shielding merchants who have religious objections to same-sex weddings — protecting them from delivering goods and services that religious liberty proponents claimed would be “compelled speech” in favor of same-sex marriage. There was a fierce argument about whether baking a cake is “speech.” Had the court said it was, the key question would have been which other goods and services would count as compelled speech. What about flowers? Linens? Wedding venues?

But the court ducked that question. Instead, it made three critical choices.

[These are the conservative legal groups behind the Masterpiece Cakeshop case]

First, it framed the decision in terms of free exercise of religion, not freedom of speech.

Second, it emphasized how the Colorado anti-discrimination commission disparaged religion in handling this issue. Here the court focused on derisive comments made about [Masterpiece owner Jack] Phillips’s beliefs by state officials and the fact that the state gave other bakers leeway to refuse to bake cakes based on what might be seen as nonreligious claims of conscience. The majority said that doing so violated the principle that neutral laws — in this case, anti-discrimination laws — cannot be applied with animus toward religion.

Third, in several passages the majority resisted any broad exemption for religiously motivated merchants who object to serving same-sex couples, whether on free-speech grounds or on other constitutional grounds. Justice Kennedy said, for example, that “society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity or worth” — and that “the exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight by the courts.”

And he said categorically that while “religious and philosophical objections are protected … such objections do not allow business owners to deny protected persons equal access to goods and service under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” This sends a pretty strong signal that Kennedy, at least, would resist broad religious-liberty claims that shielded merchants from anti-discrimination laws.

[Despite porn stars and Playboy models, white evangelicals aren’t rejecting Trump. This is why.]

John Sides: The ACLU’s David Cole, who represented the plaintiffs, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-represented-the-wedding-cake-couple-we-lost-a-battle-but-won-the-war/2018/06/04/1072dd52-6832-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html">wrote here at The Washington Post</a> that while his clients lost the battle, they won the war. Would you agree?

Jane Schacter: That depends on who will be deciding cases in the future.

Justice Kennedy has had outsize importance on LGBT rights, writing majority opinions in all the signal decisions issued by the court in the last two decades. And now he has written Masterpiece, which in part protects those decisions. What will happen if he leaves the court?

Masterpiece’s concurrences suggest that Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would like to apply a broader idea of religious liberty. The chief justice did not join those opinions. The opinions written or joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan resisted broad claims that religious liberty could override anti-discrimination laws.

So even if Kennedy was replaced with someone more like Gorsuch, we do not know if there would be five votes for a broader religious-liberty claim than the limited one accepted in Masterpiece.

[Where is Trump’s evangelical base? Not in church.]

John Sides: Is this decision related to Hobby Lobby’s protection of religious freedom at all?

Jane Schacter: Both cases pit religious liberty against equality claims. In Hobby Lobby, the business argued that for religious reasons it objected to the Obamacare mandate to offer insurance that covered contraception — something many women argue is essential to gender equality. But that case was decided not under the First Amendment but the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. That act grants stronger protection to religious liberty than does the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause. But because of an earlier precedent, the Supreme Court uses First Amendment as a standard in cases like Masterpiece involving the states.

John Sides: What is the state of the ongoing legislative skirmishing between religious-freedom acts and anti-discrimination laws?

Jane Schacter: Twenty-one states currently have their own version of RFRA, and more continue to be introduced. The most expansive of these laws will surely face constitutional challenges. Mississippi’s law is probably the most extreme in permitting, among other things, businesses to deny service to LGBT customers and has been challenged as violating LGBT individuals’ constitutional rights. The Supreme Court recently decided not to hear a challenge to that law, but it was a procedural question only. Expect further litigation.

John Sides: It sounds as if this case didn’t exactly end the debate between religious liberty and anti-discrimination principles.

Jane Schacter: You’re right. The conflict will almost certainly continue. The narrowness of the stated grounds in Masterpiece will invite continued litigation.

On the political side, the Trump administration has actively supported litigation to protect religious liberty and to oppose expanded discrimination protections for LGBT people. It has also issued executive orders expanding protections for religious liberties. I see no prospects that these disputes will recede any time soon.

John Sides is a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. He is a co-author of "The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy," on which this essay is based.

John Sides

The Washington Post

name

prism://prism.query/site,/politics/monkey-cage?limit=20

Monkey Cage

Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage. -- H.L. Mencken

prism://prism.query/site-articles-only,/politics&limit=20

Politics

Post Politics from The Washington Post is the source for political news headlines, in-depth politics coverage and political opinion, plus breaking news on the biden administration and White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, elections and more.

prism://prism.query/site,/politics/the-fix&limit=6