• Home
  • About Us
  • Political Analysis
  • Fundamentals Of Conservatism
  • CIVICS 101
  • Video Commentary
  • Political Consulting
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Political Analysis
  • Fundamentals Of Conservatism
  • CIVICS 101
  • Video Commentary
  • Political Consulting
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Conservative Era
Subscribe
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Political Analysis
  • Fundamentals Of Conservatism
  • CIVICS 101
  • Video Commentary
  • Political Consulting
The Conservative Era
Home»Political Analysis»When Does a Right Become Bullying – That May Be the Supreme Court’s Biggest Question to Answer in Religion and LGBTQ Case
Political Analysis

When Does a Right Become Bullying – That May Be the Supreme Court’s Biggest Question to Answer in Religion and LGBTQ Case

Don PurdumBy Don PurdumDecember 6, 2022No Comments4 Mins Read
Facebook LinkedIn
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

One of the purposes of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution is to provide clarity to contentious situations. Over the last several years, the high court has dealt with several issues related to religious rights. It seems the issue of faith has become a more legal issue than in the past, especially when it comes to the intersection of discrimination.

On Monday, justices heard a case involving religious freedom and free speech discrimination. Lorie Smith owns a custom website design firm in Colorado. She is an evangelical Christian who says it violates her conscience and faith to design wedding websites for gay couples. She proactively challenged a Colorado law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers.

So, the question is, does the First Amendment protect the rights of religious and LGBTQ persons when there is a contradiction? 

The challenge is that everyone has a right to be respected. Yet, when is a line crossed? For either side, does the issue become discriminatory or bullying at a certain point?

Here is the answer, in my view.

The Bill of Rights has three provisions pertinent to this case:

  • Freedom of Religion
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of Expression

In this case, a hypothetical couple enjoys two of the three, and the business owner has a claim to all of them. One would think that the state and its attorneys would understand this as a matter of fundamental Constitutional law. Regardless, the high court has agreed to answer the question: who is being discriminated against according to the Constitution:

  • The same-sex couple who wants a website announcement of their marriage
  • The business owner who is religious and has strong beliefs and convictions

Smith says that in building the website, the story represents her own speech as the creator. Therefore she can’t conscionably endorse it due to her faith. The defense argues the rejection constitutes status-based discrimination and violates a state anti-discrimination law.

On Monday, Smith’s attorney didn’t touch on the religion issue. Instead, she argued for free speech after the Supreme Court rejected the religious-rights element of the case. She contended before the Supreme Court that a Colorado anti-discrimination law violated her client’s free speech rights by compelling her to participate in speech she opposed.

Here is a philosophical challenge. The Left appears to want it both ways. Regarding social media censorship, they argue private businesses can discriminate against and censor speech they disagree with. Interestingly, when a person of faith who owns a business exercises their rights to choose who they will do business with, they allege it’s illegal discrimination.

Consider this exchange on Monday between the State Solicitor General Eric Olson and Justice Amy Coney-Barrett:

Barrett: Can a (web) designer decline to serve a Catholic club because they disagree with their views on marriage? 

Olson: Yes, it’s not status-based discrimination

Barrett: But the designer can’t decline to do a same-sex marriage (web) design? 

Olson: Yes, because same-sex marriage is inextricably intertwined with status (& religion isn’t).

Barrett exposed an apparent flaw. There are few things more intertwined in a person’s value system than their faith or the absence of one. Still, regardless of faith values, everyone discriminates based on their personal value systems. It might inform where you choose to shop and who you choose to associate with. It could inform who you work for and with which family members you want to be around. 

During the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the Supreme Court had never approved legal efforts to compel speech contrary to one’s beliefs or conscience.

Perhaps Smith, or other religious individuals, are not practicing ill-willed discrimination. Maybe they are experiencing bullying. 

The very definition of bullying is trying to coerce or intimidate someone into doing something they don’t want to do or find objectionable. Is that what Colorado is doing? Smith has a guaranteed right to choose who she wants to do business with on religious grounds. Perhaps she’s not making a good business decision, or maybe she is — either way, it’s her choice and that of those who choose to do business with her or not because of her beliefs. Colorado also had a choice. They could have respected both sides and worked as a fair mediator to balance Smith’s rights. The hypothetical couple could also find another person to make the website. In America today, many people would gladfully serve them.

Instead of working it out amongst themselves, the US Supreme Court will settle the matter, albeit likely not to the liking of either party. The majority is likely to decide for the web designer, but write their opinion so broadly it doesn’t solve the larger question about rights versus discrimination.

We’ll find out this spring.

Don Purdum, Political Analyst

The Conservative Era

Discrimination featured Free Speech Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religion LGBTQ Supreme Court
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr WhatsApp Email
Previous ArticleThe Constitution is the Only Glue Holding America Together, And Trump Should Be Denounced For Calling To Suspend It
Next Article Are Republicans Unintentionally Suppressing Their Own Votes?
Don Purdum
  • Website

Related Posts

California Proves Destructive Liberal and Progressive Policies Must Be Avoided

February 28, 2023

Cities are Preparing To Use Federal COVID Dollars to Pay Reparations, But Is It Constitutional or Wise?

February 23, 2023

Has Liberalism Decimated the Hopes and Dreams of an Entire American Generation?

February 22, 2023

Are Hospitals Inviting Government Intrusion and Healthcare Socialism?

February 17, 2023

Consider a Donation to support our work!

  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
Tags
abortion American Dream Campaign Strategy Censorship conservatism Corruption cultural crisis debate Debates Deficits Democracy DeSantis Discrimination Education Elections Equity Extremism featured Founding Fathers Freedom of Expression Free Speech Fundamentals Government Dependancy Government Spending Grassroots liberalism Liberty MAGA Misinformation overcoming progressives Partisanship Political Division Polls Poverty School Loan Forgiveness Separation of Powers Socialism Supreme Court Tax Cuts Taxes Trump US Constitution Videos Voting women
Don't Miss
Political Analysis

California Proves Destructive Liberal and Progressive Policies Must Be Avoided

By Don PurdumFebruary 28, 2023

California Democrats have destroyed a once great state. Now, things are getting worse. The state is losing tens of billions of dollars in tax revenues. Bad policies are driving out residents, and things are spiraling as liberals and progressives live in denial.

How bad is it really, will it get worse, and is California progressivism about to strike a dagger in America’s future?

Cities are Preparing To Use Federal COVID Dollars to Pay Reparations, But Is It Constitutional or Wise?

February 23, 2023

Has Liberalism Decimated the Hopes and Dreams of an Entire American Generation?

February 22, 2023

Are Hospitals Inviting Government Intrusion and Healthcare Socialism?

February 17, 2023
The Conservative Era
The Conservative Era

Your source for Conservative political analysis.

Facebook YouTube LinkedIn
  • Home
  • About
© 2023 The Conservative Era.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.