Cruz, Lee lead over 50 lawmakers urging Supreme Court to reaffirm religious liberty in artistic free

EXCLUSIVE: Over 50 Republicans in Congress are filing an amicus brief at the Supreme Court calling on the high court to reaffirm constitutionally protected free speech and religious liberty in a closely-watched case pitting religious freedom and artistic expression against LGBTQ rights.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, are leading the Supreme Court filing, which includes 20 Senate and 38 House of Representatives co-signers.

The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, involves Colorado-based web designer Lorie Smith, who says her religious beliefs would not allow her to create a custom wedding website for same-sex couples.

The Court will decide whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP CASE OVER FREE SPEECH VS. LGBTQ RIGHTS

"A victory in favor of 303 Creative would mean a victory for religious freedom everywhere. Compelled speech against anyone’s religious beliefs is an egregious infringement on the most fundamental liberties our Constitution protects. Every American should have the freedom to pursue their professions without being forced to sacrifice their religious beliefs," ….














Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cruz-lee-lead-over-50-lawmakers-urging-supreme-court-to-reaffirm-religious-liberty-in-artistic-freedom-case







This is the case I was referring to in another thread. This is clearly a double 1st amendment case regarding free speech vs compelled coerced speech and over religious liberty and the free exercise there of clause. I think that Sen. Cruz and those supporting him have a great case and that Cruz is very good at crafting legal briefs.

 

When there is a case of conflicting rights, the group that would be harmed most should prevail in getting constitutional relief. Compelling speech or actions that violates one’s religious beliefs is pure evil.

 

My thought is that folks shouldn't have to tell you why they aren't going to take your business. Make someone sue you and make the claim you didn't. Perhaps this is what happened here. Perhaps not, It doesn't actually matter, the law essentially says that conscientious objectors don't have to.. myriad of things... done.

Why the left continue to push these BS cases is beyond me. A hack website designer didn't make your special day site? Who cares, do it yourself, or find someone else. The world suffers from far too much protected species entitlement these days. And for the record, yes, I have been on the discrimination side of the conversation. You know what I say? If you can afford to watch the money walk out the door, good for you.

 

The thing is, that the LGBTQ community after the Supreme Court reversed thousands of years of human reality and prevented states from defining marriage, has gone around singling out Christian businesses related to anything at all with wedding preparation and sought their business so that they could use local laws and courts to compel and coerce them in to servitude to do their will. This is the attempt at legal relief from such revenge based targeting.

 

A Veddy Interesting Case...
Smith had been successful in developing websites for others and wanted to move into making wedding announcement websites, but as a practicing Christian, she knew ahead of time that it would be against her faith to make sites for non-heterosexual marriages, wanting to include a notice on her business website to alert users to this and willing to help such clients find other potential designers that could help them instead.
Before implementing this, Smith discovered that such a notice would violate the Colorado anti-discrimination state laws that were amended in 2008, which prevents public businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as making statements to that effect.

 

Fair enough. And they will get legal relief. The Cake baker case establishes the precedent already. It's actually tiring watching the militant LGBT folks continue to demand the full attention of the nation. It's embarrassing actually. So many of us couldn't care less and have zero desire to ever see the spotlight these drama divas so crave. It's time for them to be satisfied already and go on living without demanding everyone worship them for their specialness....

 

They can never let go of the spotlight they’ve been front and center in for decades

 

There you go, with the P word again..... You need to learn that it no longer exists in America, starting at the end of this month...

 

They want to be able to express their bigotry as "art".

**** 'em.

 

Gosh, tell that to those Dredd Scott folks... oh wait, slavery doesn't exist anymore. Why? Because a precedent was overturned. Democrats, like you, want everyone to believe in "settled law" or "settled science" and all that BS because you don't want anyone ever to really look at how stupid or dangerous your policy and decisions are. So, you hide behind this idea that things are "settled" as if there can never be a relook. Y'all are out there screeching that basic civil rights are no longer rights. Talk about precedent shattering. You might want to go easy on the extremist language though.

 

Things should only be relooked at if there is a valid reason to relook at it... Not the case in women's health rights...

 

June, the worst month of the year now. Totally appropriated.

 

Eff those who would coerce and compel them to act or speak in a way that violates their religious beliefs just so they can go on a power trip and control someone they hate.

 

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against evangelicals?

I don’t care what the ruling is as long as it is equal. Saying religious people can discriminate but no one can discriminate against them should be unconstitutional, not that I hold much faith in this new cult court.

 

Who said anything about a woman's health? A baby isn't a health issue. It's a procreation issue, and we shouldn't ever have conflated the two.

 

Liberals discriminate against those they don't like, for example evangelicals, all the time. The actively silence them in the public square, they attack them in courts, they attack them in the economy. Does that satisfy you?

 

So you support Twitter in removing access to whatever account they want. Good to know.

 

Well since I said businesses and you completely blew past it to whine about evangelicals being silenced I am going to say no, that doesn’t satisfy me.

Let me try again

Should businesses be allowed to refuse service to Christians, yes or no?

 

The cognitive dissonance is fascinatingly consistent

 

The lefts bigotry and projection is astounding in these cases, not to mention hypocrisy

 

I think you misread. The Point was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Twitters. If twitter is credible, they should have not protected their home team players.

 

I can't tell why that would be a serious question. You know the answer already. And the answer is the law does not allow for that. You know that, I know that. Everyone knows that. Same reason you can't force a halal deli to serve you a ham sandwich... But liberals are actively using the courts, their businesses, etc to attack them anyway. Are you suggesting this is wrong now?

 

I am suggesting that it is unconscionable to say group A is allowed to discriminate against group B but group B should be allowed to discriminate against group A

That is what you people are advocating, not equality but the special rights you constantly accuse others of having.

So I will ask again, for the third time, should businesses be allowed to discriminate against evangelicals? I did not ask you what the law allows.

Do you have consistency or blind hypocrisy led by hate?

 

Spoken as someone who has never carried one.... ****ing awesome, man!

It's a procreation result, even if forced on her by dad or uncle Bob....

The rest is a pure health issue.... up until the day of poppage...

 

You folks just love to hit the hyperbole button on the first swing. I suppose this is a predictable result of the kind of selfishness that liberalism creates. I mean, when can anyone expect liberal folks to look to anything but their own interests? Of course, you seem uninterested in the future life. Is it just that scary to you that you can't control the unborn?