There have been numerous debates about whether religion justifies a reason for refusing to provide service to a group of individuals, but last week, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld in a 6-3 decision that LGBTQIA+ discrimination was the same as discrimination on the basis of sex. Here is a link to an article that explains more about the 2018 ruling.

Wouldn't these two cases sort of contradict themselves, or would this one override the other?

  • Isn't there such a thing that laws don't apply retroactively? So if something is made illegal now it means that you can't be punished for doing it earlier when it was still legal? (assuming the outcome of the case you mentioned would be different if tried now, which we have no 100% sure way of knowing)
    – vsz
    Jun 25, 2020 at 4:14

1 Answer 1


I don't see the contradiction. The ACLU article you link to explains that the Supreme Court found against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in principle in the 2018 ruling.

Instead they found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had taken a dismissive attitude to the religion of the bakery's owners, and that in itself was religious discrimation and a violation of their First Amendment rights.

I would say the 2018 ruling paved the way for the more recent one, which is why the article you link is titled: "In Masterpiece, the Bakery Wins the Battle but Loses the War"

  • I think it's also important to distinguish between an artist who refuses commissions for designs that offend the artists' artistic sensibilities, versus a company's refusal to hire employees because of factors that would not affect their conduct on the job. If a bakery doesn't want to make a cake topped by figurines of two women in wedding dresses, that should be its prerogative. If customers buy a cake with a figurine of a bride and groom, and then after receiving the cake replace the groom figurine with another woman, that should be their prerogative since the cake would then be...
    – supercat
    Aug 15, 2021 at 20:48
  • ...their property to do with as they wish, without any implication that the bakery endorsed the altered design.
    – supercat
    Aug 15, 2021 at 20:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .