Abstract
Nearly everybody predicted that the Court would create a national constitutional right to same-sex marriage; that it would do so by a vote of 5-4; that Justice Anthony Kennedy would write the majority opinion; that the Court would purport to ground its decision in either the due process or equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (or perhaps a mixture of both); that it would rely in part on its decisions two and twelve years ago, respectively, in United States v. Windsor (2013) and Lawrence v.\n A less charitable reading, offered by Justice Scalia in dissent, is that Roberts bends the rules to sustain Obamacare, which Scalia renamed "SCOTUScare." The Court held, 8-1, that protection against private employment discrimination on the basis of religion-part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-extends to a Muslim woman refused employment by Abercrombie & Fitch because her apparel didn't match the retailer's desired "look" (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch).