“This Is All Part of the Conservative, Christian Plan”: US Supreme Court Says Discriminating Against LGBTQ+ People Is Okay

In a significant blow to the rights of LGBTQ+ people, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on invites for same-gender marriage.

The Supreme Court Cited Free Speech

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Lorie Smith, a Christian web designer, has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to decline to endorse things she disagrees with, it has been ruled. The decision could lead owners of similar creative businesses to evade penalties for discriminating against LGBTQ+ people, even in the 29 states that defend the rights of said people.

The Statement From the Justice

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote: “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. At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held that public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”

Smith Sued on Hypothetical Grounds

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Smith opposes same-gender marriage on religious grounds and sued the state in 2016. She said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-gender weddings but reject similar requests made by same-gender couples. She was never disciplined for declining a same-gender couple, and it’s unclear whether or not she ever actually did. It appears she sued on hypothetical grounds.

Smith Was Ecstatic – Others Expressed Dread

Smith was beyond delighted. “This is a victory not just for me but for all of us. Whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith said. On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this was a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion.” She called it “heartbreaking.”

A Blow to Human Rights All Around

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Harry Litman, Former US Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, claimed this is a huge blow to human rights all around. He wrote: “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s south and posit that the owners attest that they have sincere religious beliefs, reinforced by their pastor every Sunday, that Blacks are inferior and that serving them would force them to endorse a message they disagree with. That’s where we are headed.”

He Clarified His Statement

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Litman clarified his statement. He wrote: “To be clear, I’m not saying that’s where we are headed. Although, to paraphrase Justice Jackson, the opinion is out there like a loaded gun for someone who wants to go that way. The point for today is just that the opinion doesn’t have a limiting principle that forecloses that result.” 

LGBTQ+ People Are as Bad as Murderers, According to a Christian

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Smith’s story was shared across social media – and people had a lot to say. One Christian commenter wrote: “[Rainbows are] a promise from God, not pride. Murderers. Adulterers. Greedy. Whatever sin. They’re all the same to God. Too few know God through Jesus Christ. That is the problem with society.”

Others Were Confused

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Some conservative online commenters were confused. “Why are liberals always such alarmists?  For every person who doesn’t want to serve these people, there are at least 10 who will. Why do they always freak out over one?” one person asked. “Because it’s actual discrimination. It doesn’t matter that we can go somewhere else to be served. What matters is that the law is upholding discrimination against us. It’s a slippery slope,” another replied.

Some Posed Questions

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

The confusion didn’t stop there. “Why does it require a US Supreme Court ruling for a business owner to deny services to whomever they choose?” one individual asked. “Because it’s against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deny service to someone based on certain characteristics like race, sex, national origin, or disability,” another explained.

International Commenters Were Shocked

Image cRedit: Shutterstock.

International commenters were shocked by the situation. “This is horrifying. Where I’m from, you’d get in huge trouble for discriminating against a minority group in this way. And don’t tell me we aren’t free; we are. I, as a gay person, can walk into any business I like and know I’ll be served. Sounds pretty free to me,” one person wrote. “You’re not free if you can go to prison for having an opinion,” an American individual replied. “I can’t go to prison for having an opinion. I can, however, be punished for acting on a bigoted opinion and causing harm. It’s called being in a developed country that cares about its citizens, even if they’re not straight, cis, and white.”

The Discussion Continued

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

The discussion between the international individual and the American continued. “Okay, but what about the rights of Christians in your country?” the American asked. “In my country, most people believe in science. The minority of us who are religious tend to be loving and accepting. We follow the overall message of Jesus, not the political messages added to the Bible throughout history.”

Some Commenters Were Frustrated With Others

Photo Credit: DepositPhotos.

Some online commenters were frustrated by what others were saying. “The people in this thread giving a thumbs up to discrimination – y’all spit in the face of America,” one person wrote. “This is all part of the conservative, Christian plan,” another added.

 

“Men Can’t Give Birth”: Transgender Man Proves Transphobes Wrong and Gives Birth to Daughter

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Upon discovering his partner couldn’t have children, Caleb – a transgender man from the UK – paused his transition to become pregnant.

“Men Can’t Give Birth”: Transgender Man Proves Transphobes Wrong and Gives Birth to Daughter

“This Lake is For Residents Only” Company Sacks Worker After She Questions Black Fisherman in Viral TikTok

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

 

Tanya, who was formerly an independent contractor, found herself in hot water when she appeared in a TikTok video that quickly gained widespread attention. Her actions in this viral video led to a shocking conclusion – the loss of her job.

“This Lake is For Residents Only” Company Sacks Worker After She Questions Black Fisherman in Viral TikTok

“If He Thinks He’ll Be Able to Talk to You, He’s Way More Likely to Leave You Alone”: Woman Obtains Fake Phone Number to Trick Men

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

A woman on TikTok has shared a trick she uses to fool men into thinking they have her number.

“If He Thinks He’ll Be Able to Talk to You, He’s Way More Likely to Leave You Alone”: Woman Obtains Fake Phone Number to Trick Men

 

“It’s Like the World Thinks Dads Are Children”: Mom Slams Hypocrisy as Husband’s Parenting Wins Praise for Taking Kids Out of the House

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Emily Belson, a mother from Maryland, recently posted a TikTok criticizing the double standards when it comes to parenting.

“It’s Like the World Thinks Dads Are Children”: Mom Slams Hypocrisy as Husband’s Parenting Wins Praise for Taking Kids Out of the House