Okey, dokey, but does he realize that the minute you allow one person to violate the public accommodations law, others will also violate it under cover of this decision?

Non-lawyers never seem to grasp that the parties to lawsuits don't get to characterize their behavior. You can't just say that your business is an exercise in expression; it must be an exercise in expression.

Moreover, the issue in this case is not whom one must serve, but what one must say. A bakery cannot refuse to sell a cake to a black man, but it can refuse to bake him a cake that says "Black Lives Matter." The ruling is that narrow, and there is nothing in it that suggests it goes beyond its facts.

I do agree that the plaintiff in this case probably didn't have standing, at least not under the test the Court used in deciding not to hear a challenge to the Texas anti-abortion bounty law, which is clearly harming people now more than the Colorado law is harming Lorie Smith. But the hyperventilation about this decision is not about standing; it's about the holding, which I think is clearly correct.

I'm not a credentialist, but Constitutional law really is best left to lawyers.