The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which could allow religious foster agencies to bar gay prospective parents.
At her hearing, she couldn't tell what the first amendment said - expect NO worthwhile votes from her. And, yes, she is highly likely to make individual decisions based, not on the constitution- h err job, but on her asshole religious feelings and whatever her husband COMMANDS her to do.
Barrett will be all for stripping that away. Let's keep in mind that there are others on the Supreme Court who might counter her view. The question is why now? Why is this all coming back to bite us now? Remember that Barrett is an "originalist" Constitution wise and would also have to admit there were no women voters or women judges back in the early days. This makes her view and her position an oxymoron.