The recent decision by the Supreme court in regard to a Colorado web designer refusing to do a web design for a same sex marriage is causing ripples. First, we now know that the “Plaintiff” did not complain. He is NOT gay and is married to a woman. So how did the attorneys for the Plaintiff filed this case?
Then we have the question, can government force someone to work—if the work is against their Faith and values? This is about free speech vs. government mandated speech. It has NOTHING to do with sexual politics. Though the case has been settled, it will be discussed for a long time—too many unanswered questions. In the end, it will be the legal profession that is harmed.
WHO GETS PROTECTION?
By Richard Colman, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views, 7/7/23 www
On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado woman who wants to design wedding websites can legally refuse to design such websites for same-sex couples.
The woman, Lorie Smith, is planning to open a website business called 303 Creations.
Writing for a 6 to 3 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the Constitution’s First Amendment gives Ms. Smith the right to refuse wedding designs for same-sex couples.
Ms. Smith argued that her Christian faith requires her to reject customers wishing to celebrate same-sex unions.
The High Court’s decision raises a question: What might the court’s ruling have been if Ms. Smith’s business had plans to reject commerce from black, Asian, or Jewish customers?
Apparently, Ms. Smith’s same-sex customers do not have the same rights as other groups.
The High Court’s ruling, in effect, rejects Colorado’s law that bars discrimination against gay people.
So which persons or groups get protection in view of the court’s June 30th ruling?
Moreover, should the Supreme Court have even decided to rule on the Colorado case?
Over the last 12 or so months, the court has been chipping away at established precedents.
On June 24, 2022, the court ruled that the Roe v. Wade case, which gave women that constitutional right to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, was now unconstitutional.
What might the current court have decided in 1971, when it allowed The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other news outlets to proceed with the publication of the Pentagon Papers, a federal government’s secret study of the history of the Vietnam war?
The Supreme Court has a history of protecting American citizens’ rights from discriminatory actions by state governments and the federal government.
On May 17, 1954, the court ruled unanimously that public schools do not have the option to bar black students from attending nearby public schools. Prior to the ruling, a school in Kansas had told a black student that she could not attend a public school closer to her home than the school she was attending -– a school that was farther away and accepted black students.
In certain ways, the Supreme Court has been acting more like an authoritarian military junta than a bastion of liberty.
The current court has six so-called conservative justices, three of whom were appointed by former president Donald Trump. The three Trump-appointed justices are Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These three justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito give the court a so-called 6 to 3 conservative majority.
The court’s so-called liberal members are Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The current Supreme Court, especially in the area of abortion, is, according to polling, going against the wishes of most Americans.
If the court continues to ignore public opinion, then voters might be inclined to elect Democratic presidential candidates and oppose such authoritarian Republican candidates as Trump and Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida.
Generally, all current Republican presidential candidates oppose abortion except in the first few weeks of pregnancy.
The current Supreme Court could be becoming too extreme. If voters see this tendency as unacceptable, a Republican presidential candidate could, perhaps easily, lose the next presidential election.
