Could the Supreme Court's decision on Masterpiece Cakeshop yesterday reveal how it will rule on President Donald Trump's travel ban?
Carol Rose, executive director of ACLU of Massachusetts, thinks so. She believes language in the court's decision reveals its thinking on another hotly anticipated decision expected later this month: Hawaii v. Trump, which challenges the constitutionality of the Trump Administration's ban on immigration from several Muslim-majority countries.
In an interview on Boston Public Radio, Rose pointed to language in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision describing "the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint."
"What is that going to mean for the Muslim travel ban case?" Rose asked. "President Trump expressed that his whole purpose of having the travel ban was his hostility to Islam."
The challengers in Hawaii v. Trump argue that the ban discriminates on the basis of religion.
"It's going to be interesting to see whether the court will be able to hold a view in this case that you can't express hostility to religion in making laws and adjudications, and seeing what happens when our very own president did the same thing," Rose said.
Rose also praised the "narrow" scope of the Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
"If the court wanted to say that religion can be invoked to discriminate, they had an opportunity to do so in this case," she said.
"They very clearly declined to take that opportunity and moreover said repeatedly that religion cannot be used to discriminate against same-sex people and LGBT people in public accommodations," Rose continued.
