We told you on Friday about the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In it, the Supreme Court held that a webpage designer wasn’t obligated to create websites that she disagreed with. Jonathan Turley provided a link to the case:
...It is a victory for free speech. Three dissenting justices. https://t.co/jJc00UNq0A
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 30, 2023
The case involved a woman named Lorie Smith who owned a website development business called 303 Creative. She wanted to expand her business to include wedding websites but the state of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law purported to require her to create gay wedding websites, if she made wedding websites at all. Both sides—Smith and the state of Colorado—stipulated that (quoting from the opinion):
- Ms. Smith is ‘willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,’ and she ‘will gladly create custom graphics and websites’ for clients of any sexual orientation.
- She will not produce content that ‘contradicts biblical truth’ regardless of who orders it.
- Those wedding websites [she will make for customers] will be ‘customized and tailored’ through close collaboration with individual couples, and they will ‘express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting’ her view of marriage.
- Viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites ‘will know that the websites are [Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s] original artwork.’
On those facts, one wonders how Mrs. Smith didn’t win unanimously, or how she lost in every court before the Supreme Court. Contrary to what you might have heard in the media, you can see that even her opponents agreed that she would serve every customer but not every message. By those stipulations, if a gay man came to her seeking to create a website that revered Jesus and said nothing about marriage, Colorado conceded that she would do it.
Recommended
And we want to make one point that a few commentators have missed in good faith. While Ms. Smith was motivated by her faith, this was not based on the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Instead, this was based on the amendment's right of free speech in general. The right to speak—or, in this case, not to speak—applies equally to all viewpoints, including religious ones. This means that if you are black web designer and someone asks you to create a website praising Confederate President Jefferson Davis, you can refuse. Or an actual neo-Confederate white guy could refuse on the grounds that ‘if Davis did a better job, the South would have won!’ Under this decision, anyone can refuse to create any message for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
Which leads us to Al Franken’s weird tweet:
A CO woman asked me to write homophobic & anti-Semitic jokes to express her hostility to gay-marriage & Jews in general to promote her non-existent web-design business. Do I have to?
— Al Franken (@alfranken) July 5, 2023
So… we are pretty sure he is dunking on the decision and probably Ms. Smith herself. But there are several problems. First, Ms. Smith has not, to our knowledge, said anything bad about Jews. Second, she had a web design business, she was merely talking about expanding it to create wedding websites, so we don't know where the "non-existent" comment comes from.
But third, and most basically, is he arguing that he the law should force him to ‘write homophobic & anti-Semitic jokes to express her hostility to gay-marriage & Jews in general’? Is that the outcome he prefers?
Or here’s a fourth option: He is a moron who thinks in a remarkably shallow manner.
To say this silliness got dragged is an understatement:
Even AL FRANKEN understands the ruling. https://t.co/7tS9dfAYfg
— Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) July 7, 2023
Thank you, @alfranken, for pointing out exactly why the SCOTUS ruling was the right ruling. https://t.co/CJopgpacyM
— Chicks On The Right (@chicksonright) July 6, 2023
You have a First Amendment right to decline to express yourself in ways that run contrary to your beliefs and values. Libs wanted to strip that right from everyone, but the Supreme Court didn't let them.
— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) July 6, 2023
😂😂😂 I died
— 🐻 Mary #FlyTheW ⚾️ (@mchastain81) July 6, 2023
We are dead, too, but this kitten on our keyboard is going to finish this piece for us.
Who are you?
— JWF (@JammieWF) July 6, 2023
We hear he was once a politician and he used to write jokes.
They’re not very good at this
— Justin Childers (@societyskeptic1) July 5, 2023
No he doesn’t.
— Ron Bassilian (@Ron4California) July 6, 2023
No, you don’t have to write new jokes. Just refer to the old jokes you previously wrote.
— Vilified Ostracized (@brakinggnus) July 6, 2023
We don’t know if he said anything anti-gay or anti-Semitic, but we do recall him stereotyping Asians in a manner one can only get away with if you are a leftist.
Did this sound correct in your head?
— (((Road Bear Life))) (@bearshrugged) July 6, 2023
Wait, you write jokes?
— Who Died And Made You Queen, Queen?🌻 (@redandright) July 6, 2023
So basically what you’re saying is, you believe the Supreme Court decision was correct. But you yourself don’t seem to understand this.
— Sarah 🥨 (@cosmopterix) July 6, 2023
Or, alternatively, he is actually a fascist who wants to force people to speak the messages he approves of. But we are willing to accept stupidity as an explanation. Then again, stupidity and fascism are not mutually exclusive.
How were you a Senator?
— Aaron Nye (@anogy) July 5, 2023
No, that was the whole point of the 303 Creative court decision…
— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 6, 2023
The state of Colorado can’t force you to write jokes that you don’t want to write.
Hope that helps. https://t.co/8YrtgJDv96
This is the goddamned best tweet of the year. https://t.co/0Qlyw3ENgb
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) July 6, 2023
What... what point do you think you're proving? https://t.co/NiXuzk8BtK
— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) July 6, 2023
Thank you! The stupidity on display here is honestly baffling.
It's kinda hard to figure out his angle here, but I kinda think he's trying to claim (through asking this hypothetical) that the SCOTUS ruling removed his right to *not* produce antisemitic jokes. In fact, it did the opposite.https://t.co/nlinJW5pjb
— Brandon Fisher (BoulderFish) (@boulderfish) July 7, 2023
Either he's found his inner libertarian, or this is not the dunk he thinks it is. I'm betting on the latter.
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) July 6, 2023
The correct answer is 'no,' and he can thank the Supreme Court and the 303 Creative decision for it. https://t.co/wT6xgGhPC7
This is based as hell. Franken understands the consequences of Colorado’s (and the court minority’s) position.
— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) July 6, 2023
Or he’s an idiot. https://t.co/e2TpN8TaiP
Al Franken is working very hard to prove that his IQ is lower than Biden’s approval rating. https://t.co/t7Pvsf1U2i pic.twitter.com/xRAv2KZk9T
— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) July 6, 2023
To be fair, if it was as low as Biden’s approval rating, we are pretty sure he would lose the capacity to breathe.
Honestly, the baffling thing is that the example he gave was a perfect illustration of why the decision was correct. If you are pro-gay or at least pro-gay-equality, you don’t have to create anti-gay messages. If you don’t hate Jews, you won’t be forced to say antisemitic messages. And yet, he seems to oppose this decision?
Ugh, we are going to stop before we get a headache.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member