LogFAQs > #986814750

If we want to be very generous (which yeah, isn't quite deserved) back when the court was only slightly conservative, they did rule in favour of protections on the basis of sexual orientation (I want to say 2020?).

The argument of "you aren't wedding two people of the same gender when you would if one of those people were the opposite is quite literally gender-based discrimination" does still hold here, and was a recent enough decision the court would in theory need to justify why its okay there but not here.

Its not going to matter, but literally the current court has its own specific precedent against their own obvious expected decision here.