On Friday, the Supreme Court docket upheld the First Modification proper of conscience, 6-3, ruling {that a} designer can’t be pressured to create marriage ceremony web sites celebrating same-sex unions.
What’s actually appalling is that three of the justices bought this one improper.
Sure, the left retains insisting it is a query of discriminating towards a category of shoppers, however nothing within the majority opinion helps that: That is purely about the precise to not be compelled to create content material (“speech,” broadly outlined) opposite to your beliefs.
And it wouldn’t be a difficulty if the left didn’t hold attempting to drive everybody to submit to its agenda.
In spite of everything, this case follows repeated progressive efforts to make a cake-baker have a good time homosexual weddings underneath the identical Colorado regulation that bans discrimination on the idea of sexual orientation.
The Supremes wouldn’t enable that, both. After all the identical precept applies to different creators.
The difficulty isn’t the client, however the work he, she, ze (or regardless of the pronouns) seeks.
Refusing to see that is simply one other a part of the fashionable left’s drive to equate speech with motion.
It insists that even expressing disagreement is a type of violence — heck, even a school lesson on how folks prior to now as soon as had “hurtful” opinions could be sufficient to get a tenured professor axed.
Factor is, this half (at the very least) of the progressive mission is profoundly un-American and anti-constitutional: Freedom of conscience (freedoms of faith, of speech, of the press and extra) is protected by the primary merchandise within the Invoice of Rights for a motive.
Frankly, it’s appalling that three justices couldn’t see that.
The court docket’s “liberal” wing simply proved itself the pal of totalitarianism.
