Michael McConnell, director of the Stanford Center for Constitutional Law, wrote about that question in academic book chapter, and the Washington post wrote about it. So, what about a cemetery that refuses to engrave a headstone with the words 'beloved partner,' or a web designer asked to simply announce the time and place for a same-sex wedding, or a tailor who refuses to make a suit for a same sex groom? Or what about the dressmaker who refused to make a gown for Melania Trump to wear at her husband's inauguration in 2017? 'How is this going to be applied to the range of goods and services.' that involve 'some customizing, and arguably some artistry, depending on the eye of the beholder.' 'This decision says that the laws apply effectively to everyone but doesn't apply to this type of business, and I think there's an enormous question moving forward,' she said. Jenny Pizer, chief legal officer for Lambda Legal, called the decision limited. For the 'promise of freedom' is an empty one if the Government is 'powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of will purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of a.'' Just what today's decision means for the future is unclear. that in a free and democratic society, there can be no social castes. 'The lesson of the history of public accommodations laws is. Speaking for the court's three liberal justices, she said, 'Time and again businesses and other commercial entities have claimed a constitutional right to discriminate and time and again this court has courageously stood up to those claims.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that Lorie Smith's objection amounts to discrimination against the status of same-sex couples, discrimination because of who they are.

The general quote online free