Could the seeming non-concern from Ralph Reed and the like indicate that they are confident that the courts will carve out a "religious freedom" exemption to allow them to continue to discriminate against those they don't agree with? I am not as confident about the long-term ramifications of this ruling as many seem to be. Am I off-base?
Also, since large businesses was already persuaded to not discriminate, the net positive effect of this ruling may be small. Nevertheless, it is a positive step forward.
Perhaps, the biggest effect is the one John describes, i.e. political.
Could the seeming non-concern from Ralph Reed and the like indicate that they are confident that the courts will carve out a "religious freedom" exemption to allow them to continue to discriminate against those they don't agree with? I am not as confident about the long-term ramifications of this ruling as many seem to be. Am I off-base?
Possibly, but Gorsuch language, as pertains to employment, doesn't make room for that. Reed could be lying of course.
Unfortunately, the 1960's law that banned sex discrimination did not apply to small businesses (fewer than 15 employees). Thus, the supreme court ruling does not change this. And, there are other problems: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/supreme-court-lgbt-ruling-leaves-out-1-in-6-american-workers/2020/06/15/2afa918c-af6c-11ea-98b5-279a6479a1e4_story.html
Also, since large businesses was already persuaded to not discriminate, the net positive effect of this ruling may be small. Nevertheless, it is a positive step forward.
Perhaps, the biggest effect is the one John describes, i.e. political.