This is a major victory for religious freedom, and it is certainly a step in the right direction. Private companies may refuse service for any reason. Period. The ramifications, if any, of the corporation’s discrimination should be felt in the pocket book when people respond by not doing business with them. For instance, I would not be inclined to do business with a corporation that discriminates on the basis of race. In the case of this bakery, I would do business with this bakery because I understand why being involved in an event that they do not believe is moral would trouble the bakery.
The gay couple who went to this bakery bypassed many other bakeries and drove a significant distance to do business with this one. It cannot be more obvious that the gay couple came to this bakery to stir crap and to get publicity. In fact, the supreme court noted that the couple seemed to target this bakery and their intentions were malicious. Therefore, they ruled in favor of this bakery, but it is what those involved in the legal system call a “narrow ruling.” This ruling applies only to this particular case and does directly impact other cases of religious freedom.
It should be noted, however, that this ruling paints the Supreme Court into a corner. Have you ever seen the signs outside of stores and restaurants that say, “No shirts, no shoes, no service?” What about nudists? Some nudists choose their lack of attire for religious reasons. Many of these reasons relate to their view of the nature of mankind (anthropology). The legal grounds here get quite murky because there is not a set standard for determining when someone is maliciously targeting a belief when they cry ‘discrimination’ to the court system. Our legal proceedings are systematic, and therefore, must have tangible guidelines that are applicable in a wide scope of situations. Otherwise, the laws are not effective.
The only reasonable thing the Supreme Court can do is to rule that all private corporations have a right to refuse service for any reason, otherwise, they are contradicting the precedent that they set yesterday.