Thank you for reading!

I did not purposefully omit the factual question of design, but instead believe that had been covered in many articles about this case.

Because this is a column - not an article - I wanted to take an angle I think is often overlooked. Specifically, I wanted to point out that this is conflict of competing constitutional rights. I also thought it was important to outline how public accommodations fit in that framework. And I  only have so many words to work with!