Texans Jack & Dodie

Supreme Court Sides With First Amendment on Ruling of Christian Web Designer Refusing LBGTQ Wedding Sites

Court Says No to Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Fiasco

This morning, the United States Supreme Court  ruled in favor of a Colorado-based Christian web designer who refuses to make LGBTQ wedding sites.

Lorie Smith

The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lorie Smith, a graphic artist who does not want to design wedding sites for same-sex couples.

Conservative justices argued that the web designer has, under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, the guaranteed freedom of speech to choose which websites she designs during oral arguments last year.

Justice Neil Gorsuch

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote for the court’s six conservative justices, said “the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and commented 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.”

In 2012, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado declined to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple and was censured by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for discrimination. 

After a number of legal proceedings, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that the Commission acted with “hostility” to Phillips’ “religious viewpoint.”  

However, on the very same day that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, a transgender attorney, Autumn Scardina, called Phillips to ask him to create a cake with a pink interior and a blue exterior to reflect the attorney’s “transition from male-to-female.” 

After Phillips refused, Scardina sued,  the Colorado courts once  again found Phillips  liable for discrimination.   

On another case, the high court also ruled 6-3 that Biden’s controversial plan to wipe out debts for 26 million Americans at taxpayers’ expense was unconstitutional and an overreach of his executive power. 

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed. He said, representing the majority opinion, that such a move ‘requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department (of Education) Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.’ 

☆☆☆☆

IN GOD WE TRUST

Thanks for supporting independent true journalism with a small tip. Dodie & Jack

Use Code CLEVER10 for a 10% discount on Green Pasture products today!

CLICK HERE for GOOD HEALTH!

GREENPASTURE.ORG

CINDY LEAL MASSEY, TEXAS AUTHOR

Now Available CLICK Here!

9 comments

  2. I had all but given up on the Supremes and them upholding our constitution, but now, they suddenly pulled it together. First, homosexuals should not be a protected class, and of course the three liberals voted against everything the court decided. No student loan forgiveness, so AOC will have to pay her’s back. Waaah. No the affirmative action for universities is kaput. I bet UT in Austin will have riots over this one.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. Herein Lies the Issue: “Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and commented 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.””

    Who sets protected classes? There should be no protected class. Liberals are fond of making all their favorite liberal causes protected classes, and that means that they would always get their way, and offending them (the protected class) will always be determined to be Hate Speech.

    Businesses can refuse to do work for a variety of reasons. They are too busy, they don’t feel qualified in the particular endeavor, etc. I have a young man cut our grass, and the neighbor asked if he could do his as well. He said no. There wasn’t bias, he simply has too many to do as it is, and he doesn’t want additional work.

    I honestly think that some groups seek the services of people they know are likely to refuse just to sue.

    It’s a convenient ploy to say businesses must abide by the needs of Protected Classes, but with the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Colleges not being permitted to use Affirmative Action to choose students, they are essentially, and justifiably, ended the Protected Classes. The Govt’s willingness to bias things was shown by the IRS that refused to give Tax Exemptions to Christians:

    “IRS denies tax-exempt status to Christian nonprofit group because ‘Bible teachings are typically affiliated with the Republican Party'” 2021 Article

    The govt just willy nilly violates the rights of a plethora of groups, and the left does as well:

    “Since the 2016 election, the issue of when a business can refuse to serve a customer has become particularly significant. Despite a multitude of news articles and court cases, much remains unclear. For example, can California businesses discriminate against customers for political reasons?”

    The left constantly discriminates, then tries to use the force of law to force Conservatives to cater (literally and figuratively) to them.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Bravo. In the Colorado baker that won the SCOTUS case because a state government group said he had to make a wedding cake for a gay couple–on the day of that ruling a transvestite lawyer sued him again for refusing to bake a wedding cake for him. Insane

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.