303 Creative v. Elenis: Can the Gay Thuggee Cult Force You To Repeat Their Cult Doctrines?

Here are the facts of the case. They are simple, as the facts in all of these cases are.

PoliMath @politicalmath

Here is what is happening:

Someone wanted her to create a website. She said no.

Instead of finding someone else (there are a million website creators out there) they sued her

This isn't about the website. This is about punishing the dissenters.

You will be made to care submit.

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments about whether Colorado can force creatives to work closely with gays on their gay marriage crap, even if they are religiously opposed to the concept of gay marriage.

The Supreme Court's conservative bloc appeared sympathetic Monday to a Colorado graphic designer who argues a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates her free speech rights by forcing her to express a message that conflicts with her closely held religious beliefs.

We live in Idiocracy. "Writers" can't even write. Her religious beliefs aren't "closely held." A corporation whose stock is held by friends and family is "closely held." Her beliefs are sincerely held.

These people just repeat words they hear, like babies. That's why they just seize on words like kompromat or "stochastic terrorism." They have no idea what these words mean. They just like babbling out new sounds.

We have entered the incompetency singularity. Even something stupid like writing, which mid-wits have been doing since the mid-wit sons and daughters of the upper-middle-class needed jobs to keep them off the dole and keep them from pestering the family for "loans," is now quite beyond the abilities of the mid-wits.

Are there literally no editors or are they just all incompetent mid-wit charity & diversity hires too?

During oral arguments in the case known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court seemed to move closer to resolving a question it has left unanswered since 2018, when it narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding: whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.

While the court's conservative majority appeared prepared to find that Colorado cannot force web designer Lorie Smith to create websites for same-sex weddings, several recognized that there are differences between artists who are conveying a message and vendors selling goods and services in the marketplace.

"The case comes down to a fairly narrow question of, how do you characterize website designers? Are they more like the restaurants and the jewelers and the tailors, or are they more like the publishing houses and the other free speech analogues that are raised on the other side?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Kristen Waggoner, who argued the case on behalf of Smith, that she was on "strongest ground" when talking about the uniqueness of the websites Smith makes and work that goes into creating them.

"It's about the message," Barrett said, after posing a hypothetical scenario to Waggoner focused on whether Smith would design a site for a heterosexual couple getting married after divorcing other people (Waggoner said Smith likely would not).

New justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed the legal and forensic brilliance that was solely responsible for her winning the job in the first place.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court's three liberals, asked whether a photography store in a shopping mall could refuse to take pictures of Black people on Santa's lap.

"Their policy is that only white children can be photographed with Santa in this way, because that's how they view the scenes with Santa that they're trying to depict," said Jackson, one of the court's two Black justices.

Gorsuch gave the Colorado solicitor a hard time, pointing out that the last man they put through this nightmare inquisition -- Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Bakeshop -- was forced to go through a "reeducation program."

It wasn't a reeducation program, the Colorado solicitor responded. He was just forced to undergo state-mandated education about what services the law demanded he provide to homosexuals.

Just sort of a "compelled legal re-framing course of education," then.

Noted Rhodes Scholar Karine Jean-Pierre says that if the First Amendment means anything, it stands for the proposition that the state can compel you to repeat quasi-religious claims that are abhorrent to you.

Townhall.com
@townhallcom

KJP: "...we can require businesses...to service people, regardless of their backgrounds, even when that means businesses must, incidentally, engage in speech [with] which they disagree..."

Can I get the state to force people to repeat the words, "Christ is Lord," or nah?

The ACLU is taking the position that "Shit yeah, the government can coerce you to repeat its dogmas!!! If they're the dogmas favored by the leftist cult!!!"

posted by Ace at 01:11 PM

| Access Comments