Hacker News Reader

Comment by miles | Hacker News Reader

How is such a decision possible after this ruling just three years ago?

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...

If the current case is also heard by the SC, the outcome seems certain.

View on HN

> How is such a decision possible after this ruling just three years ago?

Very easily, given the extremely narrow, case-specific procedural facts on which the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided.

Given the way the court has handled similar cases since Masterpiece Cakeshop, I'd not be surprised if they don't take this one up either (but, I wouldn't be too surprised if they did take it up, either.)

IT was a rather clever tactic the supreme court used to judge in his favor but also lay down how to not have to deal with it again. Their decision was basically not that either side was right or wrong but the actions the state took were wrong. They ruled the way the state acted was hostile towards his religious beliefs which are protected that nullifies the case. i.e someone commits murder and claims it was a religious sacrifice and the party was willing then prosecution bases their case on two religious nuts with bad morals perform ritual and don't present the base evidence of murder not allowed. As long as in future cases brought up they stick to the basic laws of their state and don't throw in opinion evidence they can avoid the sc

I am not from the US but the core issue wasn't actually solved. There was also another case files against him around a similar issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

I find it hard to believe that this was a spontaneous event in light of previous events.

It worries me greatly that speech could be compelled. In the UK a very similar case was brought against bakers here and there was a decisive decision in favour of the baker.

It's quite interesting because conservatives in the U.S. are simultaneously attempting to compel tech companies to host content against their will but at the same time they are trying to argue that these cake / flower / website makers don't need to make content against their will.

The difference is that the tech companies between them control a huge amount of online communications. The bakers, florists and small web-developers don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com