The Supreme Court is under the microscope yet again.
The Democrat Media Complex went nuts when it was first rumored it would overturn Roe V. Wade.
Now ABC News just amplified Democrats’ persecution of Christians with this unbelievable accusation against the Supreme Court.
Religious liberty is on trial once again at the Supreme Court, which means left-wing radicals are absolutely losing their minds.
The Court is hearing the case of Colorado graphic and website designer Lorie Smith, who simply doesn’t want to violate her religious beliefs by being forced to provide specialized art services for gay weddings.
“I am a graphic and website designer from Colorado,” Smith explained. “I want to create and design for weddings. And I want to do that consistent with my faith. But the state of Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech and forcing me to create custom artwork, custom expression, that goes against the core of who I am and what I believe.”
“So the court heard the case today, I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court will stand to protect everyone’s right to create and speak consistent with their own beliefs,” she added.
That hasn’t stopped the corporate-controlled press from labeling Smith a “bigot” or “religious zealot,” and suggesting that black Americans and immigrants will soon not be able to avail themselves of public accommodations.
ABC News correspondent Terry Moran claimed that Smith “does not want to do business with gay people.”
That is a dishonest interpretation of what she believes – Smith simply does not want to be forced to participate in a wedding that’s in contravention of her Christian faith.
Moran added that while Smith is “asking the Supreme Court to strike down Colorado’s anti-discrimination act which would require her to design websites [for] LGBTQ couples, or face fines,” Colorado claimed the “law simply requires businesses that serve the general public to serve everyone. That’s been a cornerstone of civil rights law for decades and the implications of this case are potentially huge, not just limited to the LGBTQ community.”
Public accommodation requirements do not mean that people must be forced to use their skills in ways that they object.
For example, nobody would expect Smith to design a website full of swastikas.
And none of those who are demanding that Smith be forced to make a website for a gay wedding would feel the same if she was refusing to make a website for a Republican campaign.
Smith should have the right not to have her speech or artistic expression compelled, but left-wing radicals and elitists believe they are the ruling class and should have the final say.
Moran also claimed that if the Court decided in favor of Smith, it would allow a photographer to refuse to take pictures of immigrant school children because they oppose immigration.
“What if a photographer refuses to take pictures of immigrant school children because he opposes immigration in this country?” Moran actually asked. “That is the kind of question that long thought settled, but perhaps no more.”
Of course, that has nothing to do with Smith’s case.
From a purely libertarian perspective, this is why former U.S. Senator and Presidential Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) did not vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Senator Goldwater was slammed as a racist even though he was a card-carrying member of the NAACP, integrated his family’s department stores, and ensured that the Arizona National Guard was integrated.
Goldwater did not believe that businesses should be forced to serve people against their will – the free market will sort out the issue of discrimination.
Nearly 60 years later, Christian photographers, bakers, and website designers are being persecuted and compelled by the state to engage in speech against their religious beliefs.
