Thursday and Friday were banner days for conservative court watchers. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based admission standards at colleges and universities (affirmative action), and President Biden’s student loan forgiveness executive order.
Although liberals howled over these decisions, it was a First Amendment freedom of speech case — 303 Creative vs. Elenis — that caused the greatest amount of bellyaching and misunderstanding — even among those who should know better.
303 Creative is a Colorado-based web-design company owned and operated by Lorie Smith, a devout Christian.
Ms. Smith plans to expand her business to design wedding websites, but wants to limit it to celebrate unions between one man and one woman.
But her plans violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which would compel her to create websites celebrating marriages she doesn’t endorse.
Smith says that gay and lesbian weddings violate her strongly-held religious beliefs, which in turn prompted a seven-year legal odyssey that ended Friday morning.
The court focused only on Smith’s free speech rights and held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing her to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
"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," said Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing the majority opinion. “Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment."
Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
"That is wrong. Profoundly wrong," wrote Sotomayor.
"As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent."
But even the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found for the state, acknowledged that the "very purpose" of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act was "eliminating ideas" — not conduct as Sotomayor argued.
George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley highlighted this statement in a column he wrote when the high court agreed to hear the case.
He concluded Friday that this "is a victory for free speech."
But like Sotomayor, University of Michigan Law Professor Barb McQuade also missed the point, believing CADA to be not only a regulation of conduct, but also a freedom of religion case.
"I have a religious objection to bigots," she said.
"Can I now deny them services, too?”
Twitter user RightGlockMom was more than willing to play her game and turn this from a free speech into a religious liberty issue.
"Ask a person of Islam to design a website using the image of [the prophet Muhammed].
Not only is it a sin in their religion, it results in a death sentence," she tweeted.
"Did you want to force that through the courts?" she asked.
Ka-Boom! McQuade never replied. What could she say?
Boston University School of Law offered counseling to distraught students after the Student Government Association published a statement Friday afternoon denouncing the decisions.
"As a reminder, BU also offers a number of wellness resources that are willing and able to help students navigate these times," the letter said.
Democrats also joined the grouse-fest.
During his appearance on CNN Sunday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg made a wholly outrageous claim — without offering a scintilla of evidence.
"It appears this web designer only went into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking a case like this," he claimed. CNN never challenged him on it.
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., did Buttigieg one better, and claimed it was a deliberate snub directed at the gay community.
"On the last day of Pride Month, an extremist and unelected SCOTUS uses a made-up case to hand out a 'constitutional' right to discriminate against LGBTQ people," the Pennsylvania Democrat tweeted.
"What an embarrassment for our country," Fetterman concluded.
Well, yeah, there’s an embarrassment, but it’s not directed at the court.
A piece of legal advice often attributed to former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz goes, "If the law’s on your side pound the law. If the facts are on your side pound the facts. But if neither is on your side, pound the table and yell like hell!"
There’s a lot of pounding and yelling going on.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.