[DoodleDawg]

Framing it as a speech issue, being compelled to use your artistic talent for a purpise you do not support, has a better chance. The state compelling speech is likely to be more alarming if SCOTUS were to support it.

If so then it's an interesting way of approaching it. We'll see if it works.

[i_robot73]

>
Framing it as a speech issue, being compelled to use your artistic talent for a purpise you do not support, has a better chance. The state compelling speech is likely to be more alarming if SCOTUS were to support it.
>

So, let’s wrap it in an enigma, within a puzzle, within....while neglecting the elephant in the room.

Sorry, but it’s cases like this that ALLOW the court(s) to get away w/ the crap they do: They never rule based on the issue(s)

Gun laws allowed because of X, Y, Z...NEVER touch ‘infringed’.
Welfare/taxes...NEVER touch A1S8, 5th or 13th.

Just another ‘out’ for the courts and a revolving door for the lawyers\judges.