Posted on 06/30/2023 7:13:11 AM PDT by Whiskered Logic
"The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Colorado cannot require an evangelical Christian web designer to provide same-sex wedding websites that she argued was in violation of her conscience.
The court found that the state’s anti-discrimination law violates Lorie Smith’s free speech rights under the First Amendment by demanding that she create same-sex wedding websites if she wants to do so for opposite-sex unions.
The decision narrows states’ ability to apply public accommodation laws to artists, dealing a significant blow to LGBTQ advocates."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Let that sink in. A USSC justice believes in protected classes..
The Pervert Supremacists will not be pleased.
WOW! To correct decisions in two days. Can hardly wait to hear what mz. budlight has to say. No to mention joementia.
Very significant ruling. It would have been disastrous if it had gone the other way.
she insisted on reading her dissent from the Bench.
This is not shocking. Activists rule the court from the bottom right up to the top. Thankfully , for now, the power is with the constitution at the very top.
But, but, spineless chief justice roberts claims no political bias in judges.
I bet there’s a lot of people that Sotomayor would refuse to serve if she had a normal job. She has strong personal biases. Just saying.
Now can we talk about repealing 19? Which part of the Constitution creates “protected classes of people”?
Beg your pardon.....that’s mr. budlight.
I think the decision is coming out today on legality of forgiving student loans as well. Not sure.
3 actually- now lets wrap up this student debt nonsense for the clean sweep.
I thought cases like this had already been resolved when the “bake the cake” Nazis lost.
Why do we keep doing this?
Yeah, unless they rule to pay Mrs rktman back for all her student loans long paid for.. 😉👍
“USSC justice believes in protected classes”
Well yeah, that’s how SHE got where she is so in her mind it’s perfectly acceptable.
Also, just like the bakery case, this was never about some stupid gay web site, it was a legal attack to try to force Christians to abandon their Faith beliefs.
She doesn’t understand that aPRIVATE owned company does have the right to refuse service to anyone. That BS about the protected class of perverts just shows HER bias!
Discrimination against the baker’s forced pro-gay speech but no discrimination against the gay. If the gay had requested a website for, say, selling used furniture, the request would have to be granted.
I just saw the ruling in favor of the postal guy and working on Sundays. YOWZ!! Sounds like some SCOTUS folks better hire some food tasters.
Did the homo ask for a marble rye and a napoleon? Did they refuse to give zer a marble rye? A napoleon? Or did zer demand a gay wedding cake? Sotomayer has lost any pretense of judicial temperment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.