|
|
|
|
|
|
by 2bitencryption
1089 days ago
|
|
|
From the majority: "The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands." From a dissenting opinion: "Today, the court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class." Remember, the job of the Supreme Court is not to decide what is morally correct or just, but to interpret the Constitution. |
|
|
The difference is that the majority want to interpret it in a way that agrees with their morality, while the minority interpret it in a way that agrees with theirs. The actual text of the Constitution itself has no bearing on it; it can be used to justify any decision they want.
So the majority opinion becomes the Constitution. They'd like for you to believe that it flows inevitably from the 1787 text, but that's simply not the case. The opposite opinion could just as easily have been "the interpretation", aside from the accident of history that made one group the majority and the other not.