Supreme Court backs religious freedom over restrictions!

[Tenhigh]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, if your kid refuses to make one of those topiary things with two persons of the same sex holding hands, I guess we'll have another test case!

(I kind of wish I'd gone down that path ... landscape architect, that is)

Knowing my teen, he probably would instead make a hot dog and an doughnut to @#$@ the people off. 

[B-Man]

 

Sigh.

 

 

Fetterman claims Supreme Court purposely ruled during Pride Month to hurt gay people

 

We knew today would provide a plethora of additions to the bad tweet pile, but it feels like leftists are working overtime.

 

 

 

Isn’t it required for you to understand the constitution of the United States?

 

Didn’t you take the oath to protect it?

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/06/30/john-fetterman-last-day-of-pride-month-supreme-court-made-up-case-n2384998

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Sigh.

 

 

Fetterman claims Supreme Court purposely ruled during Pride Month to hurt gay people

 

We knew today would provide a plethora of additions to the bad tweet pile, but it feels like leftists are working overtime.

 

 

 

Isn’t it required for you to understand the constitution of the United States?

 

Didn’t you take the oath to protect it?

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/06/30/john-fetterman-last-day-of-pride-month-supreme-court-made-up-case-n2384998

OK, now that's a stupid hot take.

I mean, the Supreme Court term has ended on June 30 since forever. If they had issued it in May he would've said "they just wanted to spoil everyone's upcoming Pride Month.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

another summer of rage?

[B-Man]

 

Justice Neil Gorsuch has an absolute banger closing in 303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS:

 

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands."

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Correct.

It's annoying when the media (and here we go: both sides! depends on who won/lost an individual case) consistently misrepresent what they really said.

[B-Man]

 

 

Same dodge that the Left tried with the bakery.

 

He did not refuse to bake for Gays, he did not wish to be involved in a gay ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kemp]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Same dodge that the Left tried with the bakery.

 

He did not refuse to bake for Gays, he did not wish to be involved in a gay ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wondering who said these things?

Can someone point me to where anyone has said parents can't instill values into their children?

[BillStime]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

He did not refuse to bake for Gays, he did not wish to be involved in a gay ceremony.

[B-Man]

 

 

JOHN HINDERAKER: Supreme Court Defends Freedom of Speech. 

 

“Justice Gorsuch devotes the final seven pages of his opinion to dissecting the dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/supreme-court-defends-freedom-of-speech.php

[BillStime]

The irony of fabricating an entire “case” for religious “freedom.”

 

This party is corrupt AF.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

From the Gorsuch opinion for the majority:

 

Like many States, Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public. Laws along these lines have done much to secure the civil rights of all Americans. But in this particular case Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

 

Ms. Smith... has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism.... Ms. Smith does not wish to do otherwise now, but she worries... that, if she enters the wedding website business, the State will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman....

 

Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. By approving a government’s effort to “[e]liminat[e]” disfavored “ideas,”  today’s dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some to defend First Amendment values only when they find the speaker’s message sympathetic. But “[i]f liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

 

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. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. 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. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider “unattractive,” , “misguided, or even hurtful,”  But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-court-holds-that-first-amendment.html#more

[B-Man]

 

AMERICAN HEROES THEN AND NOW:

 

If you’re not familiar with web site designer Lori Smith and postal carrier Gerald Groff, you should be because we all owe them thanks for having the guts and courage to stand up and fight the good fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

https://lc.org/newsroom/details/070323-uncompromising-faith-of-americas-founders-is-alive-today

[BillStime]

On 7/2/2023 at 11:56 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

From the Gorsuch opinion for the majority:

 

Like many States, Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public. Laws along these lines have done much to secure the civil rights of all Americans. But in this particular case Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

 

Ms. Smith... has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism.... Ms. Smith does not wish to do otherwise now, but she worries... that, if she enters the wedding website business, the State will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman....

 

Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. By approving a government’s effort to “[e]liminat[e]” disfavored “ideas,”  today’s dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some to defend First Amendment values only when they find the speaker’s message sympathetic. But “[i]f liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

 

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. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. 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. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider “unattractive,” , “misguided, or even hurtful,”  But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-court-holds-that-first-amendment.html#more

What a bunch of bulllshit

 

 

[B-Man]

 

WILL THE SUPREME COURT DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE?

 

As I have written more than once, the government we live under is not the one described in the Constitution. The ubiquitous and powerful arm of our government, found nowhere in the Constitution, is the Fourth Branch, the plethora of federal agencies, the administrative state.

 

The administrative state has assumed much of the power that the Constitution assigns to the legislative and executive branches, a development that has progressed now for more than a century without serious challenge.

 

Do we finally have a Supreme Court willing to take on the unelected Fourth Branch and restore a government that looks more like the one that is outlined in the Constitution?

 

That is a lot to hope for. But next term, the Court has agreed to hear SEC v. Jarkesy, a case that raises one of the fundamental issues spotlighted by Professor Philip Hamburger in his seminal book Is Administrative Law Unlawful?–the combination of investigative and judicial powers in federal agencies. 
 

The fundamental constitutional problem is that the SEC combines enforcement and judicial power, acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. This constitutional danger was underscored last month by the SEC’s disclosure that its enforcement staff had improperly gained access to information intended for commission officials who were adjudicating cases. This included information about Mr. Jarkesy.

The Fifth Circuit ruled in Mr. Jarkesy’s favor last May. The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to continue the process of whittling the administrative state down to size. And, who knows, perhaps one day restoring the government that the Founders thought they were founding.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/will-the-supreme-court-dismantle-the-administrative-state.php

[B-Man]

 

 

Supreme Court Delivered on Workplace Religious Accommodation. It's Up to Employers to Respond

by Michael Ross

 

With major rulings on affirmative action, student loan “forgiveness,” and free speech, it’s safe to say the most recent term at the U.S. Supreme Court ended with a bang. But among the fireworks at the high court, it would be easy to underestimate the importance of the court’s unanimous ruling in Groff v. DeJoy. That ruling requires employers to provide stronger religious accommodations in the workplace for employees of all faiths under a federal law known as Title VII. 

 

In 2012, Gerald Groff was hired by the United States Postal Service as a mail carrier—a position which, at the time, did not conflict with his religious conviction that he take Sundays off for worship and rest. The next year, however, the USPS began to occasionally deliver mail on Sundays, and it wasn’t long before Groff reached a crossroads between the demands of his job and his deeply held religious convictions.

Groff did everything he could to walk the line between his faith and work, including transferring to a small rural post office that didn’t deliver mail on Sundays. But when that location also started making Sunday deliveries, Groff received “progressive discipline,” eventually prompting him to submit his resignation in 2019.

Why was Groff chased from his employment? Because the USPS considered it overly burdensome to accommodate his religious views.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelross/2023/07/10/supreme-court-delivered-on-workplace-religious-accommodation-its-up-to-employers-to-respond-n2625496

 

 

.

[BillStime]

Here we go - the license to discriminate has been administered.

 

 

[JaCrispy]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

Here we go - the license to discriminate has been administered.

 

 

Hmmm…this will be an interesting one…

[BillStime]

11 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Hmmm…this will be an interesting one…

The court opened up Pandoras box and it will backfire on everyone.