Cakeshop ruling summarized

Back to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case for a moment. John Corvino is a philosophy professor at Wayne State University. I first knew about him close to two decades ago when he earned the title of The Gay Moralist. Here’s his summary in the Detroit Free Press of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of a cakeshop owner refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The court, including everyone except Ginsburg and Sotomayor: Because the commission was hostile to Phillips’s religious beliefs, it violated his free exercise rights and its judgment should be overturned.

Kagan, concurring, joined by Breyer: I agree with the court, because the commission was indeed hostile (and also used some inconsistent reasoning), but if the commission hadn’t screwed up, Phillips probably would have lost.

Gorsuch, concurring, joined by Alito: I agree with the court, because the commission was indeed hostile, but even if it hadn’t been hostile, Phillips still should have won.

Thomas, concurring, joined in part by Gorsuch: I agree with Gorsuch, but can we please talk about free speech for a moment?

Ginsburg, dissenting, joined by Sotomayor: I agree with a lot of the court’s opinion, but just because a few commissioners made intemperate remarks, that doesn’t mean Phillips didn’t get a fair hearing. Phillips should have lost.

Notably silent on the hypothetical "some future controversy involving facts similar to these": Chief Justice John Roberts, and Kennedy himself.

Meanwhile, one part of the decision deserves far more attention than it will likely get: the point about "difficult questions" concerning how to combat discrimination while protecting fundamental freedoms.