Supreme Court backs religious freedom over restrictions!

[B-Man]

Same argument, same state. 

I’m gay, I support gay marriage, and I don’t think the ‘gay rights’ side should win in this Supreme Court case.

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. The case centers around Lorie Smith, a Christian who owns a website design business. She wants to expand her business and start designing custom wedding websites, but due to her religious beliefs, is unwilling to create them for same-sex weddings, as she would be forced to do under current Colorado civil rights law. Smith is challenging the Colorado statute on First Amendment grounds, arguing that she has a free speech right (note: the case is not about religious liberty) not to be forced to create messages she disagrees with.

 

No, she’s not suing because she wants to put a “no-gays allowed” sign in her window. In fact, she has served many LGBTQ clients and offers her general services to all. Smith is simply unwilling to create a custom wedding website, which inherently endorses said wedding, for a ceremony she does not agree with. She says she would seek to make the same refusal to other custom websites that violate her beliefs, including those which denigrate gay people or feature a heterosexual couple in violation of other tenets of her Christian faith.

 

 

The state of Colorado, on the other hand, argues that her religion does not grant her an exemption to a neutral civil rights law. The government argues that if Smith is going to offer wedding websites, she must offer them to all.

 

https://www.based-politics.com/2022/12/05/303-creative-im-gay-and-i-dont-think-the-gay-rights-side-should-win/
 

 

[T master]

On 12/4/2020 at 10:11 AM, Tiberius said:

This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying 

 

And we wonder why the world is going to hell in a hand basket (as they use to say) the moral structure of this country is in the toilet yet they ask WHY ??

 

 

[B-Man]

 

The Supreme Court is preparing to strike 
down forced speech

 

 

In a case argued at the Supreme Court this week, a Colorado website designer appealed a decision from lower courts requiring her to create wedding websites for gay couples in violation of her religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Court is likely to reverse the lower court decision, and allow her to decline to create such websites.

 

https://theaspenbeat.com/2022/12/07/the-supreme-court-is-preparing-to-strike-down-forced-speech/
 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

It’s SCOTUS Decision Season Again! Here Are the Cases to Watch.

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/athena-thorne/2023/05/15/its-scotus-decision-season-again-here-are-the-cases-to-watch-n1695413

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

More FREEDOM rulings !!!

 

 

BREAKING: SCOTUS unanimously yanks chain on EPA in Sackett

 

Anyone want to take bets on the life expectancy of the Chevron doctrine after today’s unanimous decision on Sackett v EPA?

 

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the EPA had grossly overstepped its congressional mandate in defining “Waters of the United States,” vastly limiting its authority to declare jurisdiction over what it claims to be “wetlands” on private property.

 

It’s the second such loss in as many years for the EPA’s attempt to aggrandize its jurisdiction

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/05/25/boom-scotus-unanimously-yanks-chain-on-epa-in-waters-of-the-us-case-n553404

 

 

 

 

 

.

[SCBills]

This was a 9-0 ruling. 
 

 

[JDHillFan]

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

This was a 9-0 ruling. 
 

 

If a vote went 9-0 against me I would at the very least think about how that is possible considering the makeup of this court.

[B-Man]

 

 

More good news

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

If a vote went 9-0 against me I would at the very least think about how that is possible considering the makeup of this court.

The EPA case is another example of one of thousands of executive branch actions to promulgate rules and regulations beyond the scope of the authority granted by the legislature.  If they don't like the court ruling they're free to submit legislation to the House which if passed by Congress and signed by the President would grant the authority to the agency that the court struck down.

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The EPA case is another example of one of thousands of executive branch actions to promulgate rules and regulations beyond the scope of the authority granted by the legislature.  If they don't like the court ruling they're free to submit legislation to the House which if passed by Congress and signed by the President would grant the authority to the agency that the court struck down.

 

 

Major SCOTUS Decision Neuters EPA, Leaves Democrats Spinning in Circles

 

 

 

While the overall decision was 9-0, finding that the EPA went too far in its interpretation of its power, the Justices split when it came to their concurrences. The liberals, led by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the court was going too far in deciding what environmental policy in the country is. Personally, I find that to be ludicrous. If a bureaucracy oversteps its legal bounds, who else but the courts would be able to offer protection to normal Americans suffering under such tyranny? Congress certainly can’t act on such a case-by-case basis.

 

As to the conservatives, five of them, led by Justice Samuel Alito, took the approach of actually laying out what the EPA can and can’t do under the Clean Water Act. They noted that for something to be regulated as a “water of the United States,” it must actually be connected to such in a continuous fashion. That seems proper given anything else is just a free-for-all, with the EPA getting to decide arbitrarily which pieces of private property it can exert near total power over. Imagine buying a piece of land and then the federal government telling you it’s now worthless and that you can’t live on it because they say so. That’s what happened to the Sacketts.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/25/major-scotus-decision-neuters-epa-leaves-democrats-spinning-in-circles-n751551

 

.

[Big Blitz]

Trump’s greatest legacy is this SCOTUS.   

[Tommy Callahan]

10 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Major SCOTUS Decision Neuters EPA, Leaves Democrats Spinning in Circles

 

 

 

While the overall decision was 9-0, finding that the EPA went too far in its interpretation of its power, the Justices split when it came to their concurrences. The liberals, led by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the court was going too far in deciding what environmental policy in the country is. Personally, I find that to be ludicrous. If a bureaucracy oversteps its legal bounds, who else but the courts would be able to offer protection to normal Americans suffering under such tyranny? Congress certainly can’t act on such a case-by-case basis.

 

As to the conservatives, five of them, led by Justice Samuel Alito, took the approach of actually laying out what the EPA can and can’t do under the Clean Water Act. They noted that for something to be regulated as a “water of the United States,” it must actually be connected to such in a continuous fashion. That seems proper given anything else is just a free-for-all, with the EPA getting to decide arbitrarily which pieces of private property it can exert near total power over. Imagine buying a piece of land and then the federal government telling you it’s now worthless and that you can’t live on it because they say so. That’s what happened to the Sacketts.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/25/major-scotus-decision-neuters-epa-leaves-democrats-spinning-in-circles-n751551

 

.

That ruling is great news for local, state and personal property rights.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

More good news.

 

SCOTUS to unions, 8-1: You break it, you bought it

by Ed Morrissey

 

Alternate headline: Pottery Barn rules apply to walkouts. In an 8-1 decision in which only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson fully dissented, the Supreme Court ruled today that unions have to reimburse employers for damages caused by striking workers.

 

The National Labor Relations Act does not confer immunity to unions or workers — the latest ruling from a court that has stiffened the boundaries for labor activities in the last few years: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that federal labor law did not protect a union from potential liability for damage that arose during a strike, and that a state court should resolve questions of liability. 

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/06/01/scotus-to-unions-8-1-you-break-it-you-bought-it-n554988

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by B-Man

[boyst]

47 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

***** awesome 

[KDIGGZ]

Awesome news! Absolutely common sense. Racism sucks! Nobody should be judged by the color of their skin. This is a great day and I hope this ruling has a lasting impact on other race based nonsense laws in this country. I hope for a day where we are all just considered HUMANS and skin color is never mentioned again

[The Frankish Reich]

Probably needs it's own topic. Coming in 3, 2, 1 ...

[Tommy Callahan]

And as soon as the ruling came out. twitter was full of voices saying, "expand the courts", "there are ways around this ruling to maintain diversity."

 

LMAO

 

this is a very good ruling and a long time coming.

 

as good as the FDA finally removing aspartame from the market.

 

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Omg