This is tedious. I haven't the strength to repeat the same post over and over, ad nauseum. The addition here is that I get to see another schmuck from ADF refer to a baker as a fucking “cake artist.” That in spite of the fact that numerous courts have ruled that even the most exquisite smearing of butter cream over spongecake is not artistry as that term is understood in the law.
I am guessing that Jim Campbell is James A. Campbell who has been practicing law since 2006 and who went to law school at the University of Akron. He apparently joined ADF in 2009 which is when he was licensed in Arizona (ADF claims 2007). Presumably he was not on a partnership track anywhere prior.
I will be brief. We expect people to follow the law. If someone is legally required to design a gown for a Trump then we expect them to design a gown for the Trump. All of ADF's self-manufactured “victims” have violated state or local laws requiring public accommodations not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The all did discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. ADF's lawyers should know this by now. They have lost every round of every similar case and the one chance that they had before the Supreme Court was denied certiorari while Scalia was still among the living. In fact, I think that was Campbell's case (Elane Photography v. Willock).
- 1879: Reynolds v. United States. The state may regulate conduct and in doing so is not regulating religious belief.
- 1990: Employment Division v. Smith. There are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws. Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority.