McConnell fucked us real good!

So were headlines elsewhere. The case has been returned to the lower court for reconsideration. If that court finds there was no clear anti-religious bias in process, for example, then wouldn’t the ruling outcome stand?

SCOTUS didn't want to be seen repealing their recent decision about the Colorado bakery, so they just said that the Seattle case should be re-considered, and if the ruling is the same as before, then so be it.

If the ruling was the same it would be appealed back to the SC. When the SC sends a case back to a lower court for reconsideration they generally don't expect the same ruling.

The last two paragraphs:

Putin & drumpf are so happy today, their ringer gorsuch came through for them again.

But certain “progressives” who decided there was no difference between Trump and Hillary.

the First Amendment? I guess. Is a precedent now being set for discrimination. Can all minorities now be discriminated against?

Elect me president and give me enough Democrats to do anything, and sexual orientation will become a federally protected class. If the GOP complains, Christianity will be removed from the list of federally protected classes on grounds they’re old enough to be able to take care of themselves.

The two tend to leapfrog each other in court as both suffer the same discrimination for not conforming to Good Christian gender binary norms.

wrap it in religion and artistic expression.

Shouldn't have any problem with the Red Hen refusing to serve Hucksterbee Sanders.

If the restaurant was in D.C. it would be a different matter because D.C. has a law not allowing discrimination for political reasons.

DC Human Rights Law bars discrimination based on "political affiliation", not political positions. If the restaurant could show, as I'm certain that it could, that it regularly and routinely serves individuals who are members of, or endorse, the Republican Party, the restaurant would have a pretty solid defense against any claim that the reason they denied service to Sanders was merely because she is a Republican.

Given the facts the restaurant would have to do back flips in court to avoid conviction. No restaurant manager in their right mind would go through that.

It wouldn't be that hard a fight to win. The definition of 'political affiliation' in the law is clear: "the state of belonging to or endorsing any political party." Given that numerous Republicans had spoken out against the Trump immigration policy, it is clear that the issue was one of policy, not affiliation.

Of behavior, eg, consistently lying to the public? Or that her presence upsets the employees or other customers?

It seems to me (a layperson not familiar with the cases etc) that, given that restaurateurs can deny me service on bases like “no shoes, no shirt—no service”, or even that I wasn’t conforming to their “jackets required” dress code, they have a lot of freedom to exclude customers on other grounds—as long as they are not discriminating on the bases of grounds spelled out specifically in statutes, such as race?

Witnesses and evidence are not free. It would cost them 2 or 3 years of profits to present a case like that. Real life court are not the internet discussion boards.

Argument.

You religious beliefs prevent you from serving her your artistic cheese spreads.

I have moral objections to

everything Republican
unmufflered throaty engines
local taxes
income taxes
doctor's bills
wine without flavor
etc
etc
etc

If everyone starts objecting at everything on religious grounds, the world will come to a stop

This is the logical playout of the Hyde amendment. "I object, therefore you cannot use my tax dollars for ...."

No cheeseburger for you.