In Reply to: DOJ Fights Whisk Management in Bakerís Case posted by Ed Gooding (VA) on September 09, 2017 at 07:49:55:
Complete agreement that this is likely the most significant religious liberty (what an antiquated concept) case in a century.
That said, constitutional textualists (those who believe that the Constitution means what it actually says, rather than what others who do not like what it says have been successfully convincing appointed judges to believe what they would like it to mean since the advent of progressiveness/liberalism, progressivism (the wheel continues to turn)), should not be encouraged.
"The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent. These are foundational pillars of Constitution."
After, all, the Roberts court used tortured reasoning to find that the government could, indeed, force you to buy what you would rather not buy.