Last Friday, June 30, the Supreme Court recognized the Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….”
It’s funny how freedom of speech and freedom to exercise religion keeps popping up. It’s almost like there’s a group of ideologues who want the power to make Americans do and say things we don’t want to do or say. In 1789 our founders protected citizens’ rights to speak publicly and to practice their religious beliefs without interference from the government. Last Friday, the Supreme Court agreed with what the Constitution says. Our founders had just fought and won freedoms from a government that had repressed the people’s rights.
Over the years Congress and courts have created “protected classes” of citizens who believe they can do what Congress is prohibited from doing, i.e. infringe on citizens rights to speak freely and prohibit their rights to exercise their religion. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Smith, owner of 303 Creative, a website and graphic design company, recognizing her right to run her business freely in accordance with her religious beliefs.
Lorie Smith wanted to expand 303 Creative’s services to include custom websites, but because she lives in Colorado she feared the state would try to force her to create websites that violated her religious beliefs. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So, Smith proactively filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction to keep the state from forcing her to create any wedding websites that contradicted her own religious beliefs.
Smith’s case won in Colorado’s district and appeals courts, but the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against her. Thus, Smith appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which recognized her right to speak her own beliefs and not be forced by the government to speak state approved decrees.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the message, and not on the customer or business owner. Smith has always done business with customers regardless of sexual orientation. But, she has never created messages for anyone that violated her religious beliefs. The ruling was purely about the message and not about discriminating against a person.
Smith herself has made that distinction saying she has no problem working with the LGBTQ community, but not for gay weddings. She said, “I think it’s important for people to understand that I love and welcome the opportunity to work with all people. My case has never been about choosing which client to work with, but about choosing the message that I’m being asked to promote.”
In the majority opinion Justice Gorsuch wrote, ”In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.” He continued, “But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.”
Heaven knows the wide range of messages the Constitution allows to insure freedom of speech. The Constitution also allows people to disagree. Can we have disagreement without discrimination? The sign on the door of a public restaurant says, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” Is that discrimination?
Daniel L. Gardner is a columnist who lives in Starkville, MS. You may contact him at PJandMe2@gmail.com.
13 comments:
Best tacos ever were served to me shirtless and shoeless in a sunny Mazatlan patio with one big round "joiners' table of young tanned Americanos trying to eat and laugh at the same time. A Mexican lady hustled back and forth from the Kitchen, inside, to sell us dozens of fresh fabulous tacos and Sprite with lime wedges to wash it all down.
Viva Free Speech, Free The Tacos!
Just like most of your writings DL, these folks concocted a case out of the blue, the person who supposedly made the request was a straight married man who wasn’t even aware he was a party to the suit until he was contacted by a reporter after the case was decided..Erin Hawley should be sanctioned by the the court and be stripped of her privileges to argue before the Supreme Court.
This is the Republican/Conservative Mantra these days, win at all cost. Lie,Cheat Steal whatever it takes.
It was a dark day when the SCOTUS stretched "freedom of speech" into "freedom of expression".
"Freedom of speech" now means "freedom to be obscene" only; there is no freedom of speech to employ any language proscribed by The Left.
It was all a charade, there never was a case to be litigated. These Right Wingers are going to push young folks , liberals & independents to the polls. Between reproductive rights, Affirmative policy, and these kinds of shenanigans they will finally understand that they are in the minority.
The Roberts court is setting the stage for a Democratic landslide in 2024. These decisions appeal to people like DL but not to the majority of voters.
This case was a made-up fraud. It is null and void under the law.
I'm always encouraged when a local lettuce-head in Mississippi declares a Supreme Court ruling to be 'void under the law'.
(in re 9:09 July 8)
A few years back, our business had some local electricians at the facility performing work.
One of the electricians wore a t-shirt which on one side was printed: "Save a horse - Mount a cowgirl". On the back was printed: "If she protests, tighten the bit".
As HR Director, fully aware of my responsibility to deal with potential sexual harassment issues, I made him leave the facility until he could change shirts.
And, yes, an employee who might have claimed to be offended (even by a vendor's employee) would have prevailed.
Are some of you suggesting I would (today) be violating the ruling of the Supremes?
If you voted for Trump, don’t complain about the Court.
@7:22 am - no, no one is suggesting that. As a private business you are free to establish a dress code.
@ 1:20 - However, if the business had been a public agency, the offensive shirt would have been freedom of speech. As in the no shirt, no shoes scenario. True or false.
1:20 - The issue is not 'dress'. The issue is 'speech'. Has nothing to do with establishing a dress code.
Messages on clothing are examples of 'speech' according to the law. Either it's protected or it's not. Depends on the volume and the venue.
Post a Comment