now this is more interesting.
dmp said:
In the Masterpiece cake decision the court did look at the statements by the Government (CO civil rights commision) while in the travel ban the majority ignored Gov statements (Trump's statements would have showed a clear religious intention behind the ban.)
If we get the supreme court vetting President Trumps tweets, that will keep them distracted and occupied for years.
I find it hard to be so certain about a religious (anti-muslim) intent, when the facts of the ban suggest otherwise. A couple non-muslim countries were on the list, and the vast majority of muslim populations were not covered by the list. What were covered were mostly failed states with inadequate internal security to know about who they were sending. One banned country was removed from the list after they cleaned up their internal security practices.
Occam's razor suggests that the simple answer (the travel ban is about security) is the correct one.
The media story characterizing POTUS as (insert your favorite pejorative) is not made true by repetition.
Judicial activism? Or is there a reason to apply different standards to these two decisions? Wasn't there clear evidence in the travel ban case that the Government actions were not religiously neutral? (Trump's statements of a 'muslim' ban.)
I would always defer to factual analysis (like the text and reality of the travel ban).
From the NYT:
"Writing for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision, he said the Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, had been infected by religious animus. He cited what he said were “inappropriate and dismissive comments” from one commissioner in saying that the panel had acted inappropriately and that its decision should be overturned.
It appears there is quite a lot of religious animus around the world. The civil rights commission sounds politically charged so likely to infected with all kinds of animus (as is modern politics).
“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”
From the actual SCOTUS decision:
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise
principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was incon-
sistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
I do not see the equivalence between these two opinions. There are many examples of bias within our government, too many to list.
The US has always been a little conflicted about separation of church and state (with "In god we trust" printed on the money), while freedom to practice whatever religion you want is specifically protected by the constitution.
I am not a fan of the government telling private businesses who we must serve. That includes restaurants who feel like kicking out administration employees. If they want to do that, it seems like a self-destructive business practice, but should be their right.
JR
PS: I expect discussions about SCOTUS to get more heated and divisive now that Kennedy announced his retirement. If anything I'm surprised it hasn't hit here harder because it is actually significant to the future balance of SCOTUS. Some other interesting SCOTUS decisions were just handed down too but I won't poke that bee hive.
). 
