“The Supreme Court grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class"

What leftists don't get is that freedom includes the freedom to offend.

Right?

One of the liberal states is just about to make it illegal to offend people via the 'crime' of misgendering or deadnaming. You can take the 'offending' individual to court and he or she can receive a huge fine and even prison time. Eventually the Supreme Court will strike it done as being unconstitutional . . . but not before countless lives are ruined.

Best reason ever given to totally ignore these people… don’t interact with them.

Sorry... the Constitution says there are No Protected Classes... everyone is equal...

Wow, that's really racist to say, lol, nice way to prove a point. Although, it is still your choice to do business with who you please.

That is a mischaracterization of the ruling.

A quote from Justice Sotomayor - “The decision’s logic cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services,” adding that “a website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example.”

The ruling is in reference to not “participating in” versus providing service to.
An atheist could refuse to make a website for a mosque, but still is required to make a website for a pest control business owned by a Sikh.

Your title of and caption in the meme are wrong. I think Sotomayor’s comment also borders on mischaracterization. What is the basis of her hypothetical website designer’s civil right? Does the designer practice a religion which prohibits mixed race marriage? I think Sotomayor is showing bias.

Are you a lawyer? Read the dissents before commenting on who's wrong. You always comment as though you are an expert on every topic. Well you are wrong once again! Be sure to turn off "reply" so I can't respond to your next incorrect comment.

You are ignoring the majority ruling by the SCOTUS.

Did YOU read the ruling? Are YOU a lawyer. Who says YOU are always right?

You have no rational rebuttal to to a majority Supreme Court ruling.

It's just a matter of time until an interracial couple is denied service from a bigoted business owner somewhere in a southern red state.

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

"It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case," Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 Supreme Court decision on Friday. That decision said web designer Lorie Smith was not legally required to design websites for gay marriages because doing so would violate her free speech rights and Christian beliefs,

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch-blasts-sotomayors-dissent-in-christian-web-designer-ruling-reimagines-facts-from-top-to-bottom

Just ignore the rights the Court voted to affirm.
Your title is missing the following:

…in limited instances to protect other equally important civil rights of others.

Well then, you'd be breaking the law. There is no religious exception for violating rights based on race. Please enlighten yourself.

Please enlighten yourself! “A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example” Sotomayor wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Says much about her and the other two who voted negatively...Should that case come before the SCOTUS I'm guessing she would say, 'yes, you can discriminate against an interracial couple" because of this ruling. She would once again be in the minority as the majority would say it is NOT the same.