Just a brief note about the venal opinion in 303 Creative, authorizing religiously inspired bigots offering commercial services to discriminate against LGBT customers as long as their business has an "expressive" aspect (whatever that is) and they have "sincere religious" hatred of LGBT people.  (OK, the court didn't quite put it that way.)   The current super-legislature has long had a massive bias in favor of religious believers, and that is now running up against anti-discrimination law.  One hopes (but I confess I'm not sure) that they would draw a line at "sincere religious" hatred of Black people or interracial couples, which is to say that the real meaning of the decision is that religious bigotry against gays trumps the value of anti-discrimination protection for gays.  Professor Dorf's more measured, but critical, commentary is useful. [Link fixed]

ADDENDUM:  The decision is nominally grounded in general "free speech" principles, not religious free exercise, but I find it hard to believe the decision would have come out the way it did if the challenge to the anti-discrimination law were coming from a secular bigot.