Posted on 07/04/2023 9:40:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision that Lorie Smith, a Colorado-based Christian graphic artist and web designer, did not have to create content that violated her beliefs. In response, Clara Jeffery, editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, tweeted, “perhaps gay stylists, designers, caterers, and planners should start withholding services from Christian conservatives and see where that goes.” After all, Jeffery reasoned, if a Christian can create content for a gay couple, surely gay professionals can decline services to Christian conservatives.
More extreme was the reaction of actor Michael Imperioli who posted on Instagram, “I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or TV show I’ve been in. Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA! USA!”
In her strong dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that, “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” And she claimed that the ruling comes amid a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities.”
Many headlines reflected similar sentiments, such as this one posted on the UK Guardian: “US supreme court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights with Colorado ruling.”
In reality, the ruling did no such thing, and Justice Neil Gorsuch was right to challenge Justice Sotomayor’s arguments. He stated that Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion “reimagines the facts” from “top to bottom.” He also argued that she failed to answer the fundamental question of, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”
In his view, what Justice Sotomayor was arguing for was for the court to allow the government to force an individual to “speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction.” This is clearly a violation of our most fundamental Constitutional rights.
That’s why law professor Jonathan Turley described the Supreme Court decision as an “amazing moment” in history with regard to the First Amendment. And he rightly pointed out that the decision had nothing to do with discrimination, since Smith freely served a wide range of customers, including those who identified as LGBTQ.
As Turley noted, cases such as these “do not change the public accommodation laws. You cannot be refused to go into stores and buy items that are pre-made, for example, based on your race or your status.”
But if someone wants to compel you to create something contrary to your convictions, the state cannot compel you to do so.
That is exactly what Colorado law was trying to do, and the Court, by a ruling of 6-3, shut that unjust law down.
Kristen Waggoner, CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Erin Hawley, an ADF attorney, echoed Turley’s sentiments, writing, “The Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis is a crucial victory for every American regardless of their religious, political, or ideological views. In that case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the most fundamental of civil liberties—that the government may not tell people what to think or say.”
As for the counter-argument raised by Jeffery’s and others, I’d love to hear their answer to these simple questions.
Should a gay web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for a counseling service that helps people overcome same-sex attractions?
Should an Orthodox Jewish web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for Jews for Jesus?
Should an atheist web designer be compelled by the state to design a website called “Answering Atheism”?
Should a trans-identified web designer be compelled by the state to design a website on the dangers of hormone therapy and sex-change surgery?
Should a Muslim web designer be compelled by the state to design a website for a meat service specializing in pork products?
Should an African American web designer be compelled by the state to design a website selling Confederate flags?
Should a Christian web designer be compelled by the state to design an “Adultery Hookup” website?
Should any web designer be compelled by the state to design a pornography website?
If Jeffery or Imperioli were website designers, should the state be able to compel them to create pro-Trump content for a Republican lobbyist? Or content stating that he won the 2020 elections?
The answer to all these questions is obvious: none of these people should be compelled to create content that violates their beliefs or convictions. The state clearly has no right to compel them to do so.
And what about a gay-owned T-shirt company? Should they be compelled by the state to design a t-shirt with the words, “God does not recognize same-sex marriage”? Should a Christian-owned printing company be compelled by the state to design flyers for a Satan conference? The list goes on and on, and in every case, the answer is an obvious “No!”
But should these same individuals or companies be allowed to refuse general services to someone because they are gay or trans or Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Black or White? Obviously not.
That’s why some of the Christians who have come under attack in recent years had served LGBTQ+ customers for years. Some of them even had LGBTQ+ employees. But when it came to creating artistic content that violated their beliefs (such as creating a wedding cake or designing a floral arrangement for a same-sex ceremony), they declined. And for that, they were dragged into court, with their lives turned upside down. (See here and here for prime examples.)
In the same way, if a gay person said to Lori Smith, “I’m Tony and I’m gay, and I’d like you to create a website for my window cleaning company,” it would be illegal (not to say unchristian and unethical) for her to say, “No, I won’t do that because you’re gay.”
But if Tony said, “I’m Tony and I’m transgender, and I’d like you to create a website for my children’s books that are designed to help kids recognize their hidden trans identity,” it would be legal (and Christian and ethical) for her to politely decline.
That’s why the Supreme Court’s decision should have been 9-0, applauded by people from all backgrounds. The fact that it was 6-3, with many Americans outraged over the ruling, reminds us of just how confused our nation has become.
May truth and sanity prevail.
Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book isWhy So Many Christians Have Left the Faith. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.
I am very glad that the sign iin the grocery store that mom and I shopped at in the 1950’s still stands:
” We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Thank you,, the Mamagement.”
right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.
What the hell is a “protected class” ?
The list is endless. Should a Jewish web designer be required to create a site for a Neo-Nazi group?
Of course, the left only knows how to distort perceptions and appeal to emotions without reason.
I remember, years ago, making these same points. It has nothing to do with the _person_, it has everything to do with the _content_.
The first such example that popped into my mind was should a Muslim web designer be forced by the state to publish a website with a picture of Muhammad?
Yes! Excellent!
Oh, please don't throw me in the briar patch!
That was the stance that made life hell for blacks.
Should Clara Jeffery, editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, be compelled by the state to publish articles in Mother Jones that support conservative candidates for president of the United States?
I seem to remember signs that said “ We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone”.
Afraid that you’re wrong. Should a grocery store or department store that’s open to the public be able to forbid blacks from entering, solely because they’re black? Obviously that violates Equal Protection. Now, if it was a private club, that would be (and is) a different matter.
“This is a great example of why I hate liberals so much. We’re constantly told that the oligopoly of the largest social media companies on the planet can discriminate against anyone at anytime for any reason, no questions asked since they’re private companies. We’re also told that an independent baker, florist, photographer, web designer, can’t refuse to do business for same sex weddings. Of course, they cheered when a florist in Tennessee refused to make floral arrangements for a GOP meeting.”
————
Hypocrites of the first order. But these are not liberals, these are Leftists - who have no principles at all, save dominance over others. 20th Century liberals might disagree with you, but they generally played by the rules.
Incorrect as usual.
Of course it is not illegal. Nor would it be unChristian or unethical.
You have the right to turn down ANY commission for ANY reason.
Including that you just do not like his face.
For example I would never work for Dr Brown because working for someone who promotes slavery is just wrong.
I know, and that’s where the laws came from. Nevertheless, the Constitution doesn’t outlaw being an asshole. I think these days, the market would take care if people like that.
The correctness of the Supreme Court’s ruling is made crystal clear by those questions. Game, set and match.
You shouldn’t even need the list of examples. The simple question is: should anyone be forced to perform for someone against their will? If so, how is that not slavery?
.
Some people are jerks, and will refuse service to someone for stupid reasons (I don’t like Conservatives, I don’t like the Irish, etc). It happens. But that does not excuse forcing anyone to do anything they do not want to. “Joe is a jerk, so therefore Jill must do things she doesn’t want to”? That makes zero sense.
.
The first exceptions were made for public accommodations, like no hotel rooms for traveling blacks in the South... where actual danger could loom for a black family having no place of shelter... but even those possibilities are far more rare and specious these days. (Heck, it seems like the majority of hotels are owned by someone from India these days anyway.)
.
The Left, as always, is simply exploiting the Law to continue to push their agenda, and anything that gets in their way must be opposed and screeched about... even quasi-slavery.
The decision is an excellent read. What surprised me was the decision’s entire focus upon the freedom of speech, rather than religion. This decision aligns perfectly with the recent decision about the FBI censoring Facebook posts.
Chances are the conservatives are already avoiding gay owned businesses, so yeah lady, go ahead and refuse to work with “Christians”. If you can find one.
And particularly the CORPORATE NETWORKS who OWN THOSE PROGRAMS.
Imperioli was nothing more than an EMPLOYEE OF THOSE COMPANIES!
Where’s your business, I’ll be more than happy to do business with you!
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.