Speaking of which, the media keeps contending that Phillips is looking for a religious “carve out” in anti-discrimination law — or something along those lines. No such thing exists. It is unclear if the people who write those words are unfamiliar with the First Amendment or just instinctively dismiss it, but religious liberty and free expression are explicitly protected by law. Anything that infringes on those rights is the “carve out,” not the other way around. If “anti-discrimination” laws dictate that the government can compel Americans to express ideas they disagree with, as Colorado does, then anti-discrimination laws need to be overturned, tout de suite.

At this point, the best-case scenario is for Phillips’ case to reach SCOTUS, so the court can either repair the Masterpiece decision — which basically provided the state and activists with a guidebook on bullying people of faith (basically, don’t show public animosity while doing it) — or shelve the First Amendment.

[I’m actually encouraged that Colorado’s supreme court took up the appeal from Phillips, and so is ADF, which represents Phillips (again or still, depending on your perspective). They could have let the appellate ruling stand and force Phillips back into federal court. With that said, though, Harsanyi’s correct. We need a broad ruling from SCOTUS that sharply narrows these “anti-discrimination” statutes and regulations. They should have produced that the last time Phillips came to them for relief. — Ed]