Thursday and Friday, the US Supreme Court made two astonishing rulings. In a pair of 6-3 decisions, the Court decided that the US Constitution actually applies to people who are not part of a privileged caste. In the combined case of Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the Court ruled that discriminating against anyone on the basis of race was unconstitutional and no amount of lipstick that you smeared on the hog of good intentions could make it anything other than the odious act it is (BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Race-Based College Admissions). In the second decision, 303 Creative vs. Elenis, the Court ruled that the government cannot make private citizens espouse opinions that are objectionable to them; see Supreme Court Rules Christian Web Design Company Does Not Have to Promote Gay Weddings. In this case, a web designer said she would not create websites that “celebrated,” if that is, indeed, the word we should use for a shameful parody, homosexual weddings or, presumably, other such anti-Christian messages.
Naturally, the left reacted to these cases with lies on a heroic scale. In her dissent to the Students for Fair Admissions cases, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed “for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug: it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.” See ‘Ted Talk’ Given After Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Disputed Claim About Black Babies in AA Case. In reality, the study she cited found the difference in survival rate for a Black infant with a Black doctor to be 99.96% while a Black infant with a White doctor had a 99.91%. Sonia Sotomayor, our beloved wide Latina, regurgitated in her 303 Creative opinion the urban legend that Matthew Shepard was killed because he was homosexual instead of mentioning that he was a drug addict and dealer, a homosexual prostitute, and had an ongoing sexual relationship with one of his killers, who was also a drug dealer. All of this would presumably be legal because a web designer opposes homosexual marriage; see Say What? Sonia Sotomayor Is Compared to Mazie Hirono After Astonishing Claims in AA, 303 Case Dissents.
Two big criticisms have been directed against the 303 Creative decision. First, the critics claim that 303 Creative was a “hypothetical” case because 303 Creative’s owner sued for an injunction before Colorado could slap her with a fine. Here is an example of this. I have no idea who “Kaivan Shroff” is when he’s up and has his trousers on, but this is his take.
This is dumb for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court decides if the cases it takes are hypothetical, not some Twitter rando. If it takes a case, the case is, de facto, not hypothetical, in the opinion of a majority of the Court. Second, this case had been heard at the district court level and was taken on appeal from the Tenth Circuit, whose decision the Supreme Court reversed. Obviously, the case was not hypothetical.
The second line of attack is that the 303 Creative is based on the incoherent dissent by Sotomayor, who turned a very simple case briefed by both sides on the government’s ability to make citizens hold a certain viewpoint into one of public accommodations, see Gorsuch Savages Sotomayor’s Brain-Melting Dissent in the 303 Creative Case. As Gorsuch said, the 303 Creative decision has zero to do with public accommodations as the designer had no problem serving homosexual clients.
It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case. Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws, post, at 7–13, and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law, post, at 14–17. And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?
Here is a Twitter rando parroting an argument made a few thousand times yesterday but with the lack of introspection to understand they were being low IQ derivative and not an edgelord.
For the record, I’m opposed to public accommodations laws based on liberty and free association grounds. If your magenta hair and ear gauges gross me out, I should have a right to tell you to shove off when you show up in my business. The only thing damaged by that interaction is my wallet. And if you don’t want me in your business, I don’t want to be there. As my friend and colleague, Jim Thompson replied to this twit:
The era of the Woolworth’s lunch counter is over. In fact, the left is leading the charge in this direction (see The Sarah Sanders and the Red Hen Restaurant Story Takes Turn Directly Where You Thought It Would). Where possible, I give my business to Christian and conservative businesses. I don’t shop at places that wear their progressiveness on their sleeve; looking at you, Starbucks. I don’t go to stores displaying “PRIDE” signage (theological note, this is very appropriately named as pride is the sin that got Lucifer booted from Heaven). I won’t buy an Anheuser-Busch beverage even for someone else. I’m definitely not going to eat food made by openly gay caterers or hire any business that makes their sexual aberrations part of their business model. I haven’t returned to those businesses that required a face mask once the government mandate ended. In fact, the quicker the left goes in this direction, the quicker we will be able to easily identify businesses that adhere to traditional values and keep our money with like-minded Americans.
So, as far as I’m concerned, withhold services all you wish. There are plenty of businesses run by normal people who aren’t controlled by the random twitches emanating from their crotch. I’d much rather send my money in their direction than subsidize values and beliefs I find to be abhorrent.