In the past, Christians became the target of gay couples who were seeking to make an example out of them when the odds were in their favor. Back then, more liberals controlled the court and legislated from the bench. They often decided in favor of the LGBTQIA community setting aside the text of the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, in favor of inferences that made no legislative or rational sense when compared to the Constitution.
Well, things are different now. The Court decided to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians and overall conscience rights. Immediately the left cried out "Second-class citizenship!" In other words, they feel the LGBTQIA community will not be seen as second-class citizens. Justice Sotomayor wrote in a dissent,
"Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’”
There is speculation that Sotomayor herself may be a lesbian due to her passionate responses whenever the other justices decide against the LGBTQIA community. What she and other leftists fail to realize is that one party cannot force another party to go against their beliefs whether religious or not. No one is being denied service. Cakes, pizzas, and websites can be made for the LGBTQIA community, but not ones with content that goes against the provider of the service. This should be common sense to anyone who has reasoning skills. For example, one cannot ask a Jewish caterer to create Nazi theme meals or a Muslim-run business to create something that contains pork. Not only is it disrespectful, but an affront to the person's conscience rights.
The Supreme Court also gave a huge blow to President Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness program which sort to erase all or most of the debt students have accrued during their studies in college. The plan was welcomed by many students who feel that student loans are like owing money to a Mafia loan shark. However, many others protested the idea believing it to be fiscally irresponsible and teaching students in college to be irresponsible. The reason they go to college is to earn a degree so as to get a better-paying job to pay for living expenses including debts and mortgages. Paying off their student debt with taxpayer money sends the message that they do not have to pay back debts. It creates an atmosphere of irresponsibility. Students can study on loans and then not pay them back while relying on the government to use taxpayer dollars to pay back loans. The idea sends the wrong message.
What is next? Will people who owe rent or mortgages demand the government uses taxpayer dollars to bail them out? Some may bring up the 2008 bailing of banks, but that situation was different. Banks are important in a capitalist society. They need to be up and running, not failing and collapsing. The bail money they were given was not free money either. They had to pay it back to the taxpayers. Paying student loans is way different. No one is paying taxpayers back if this plan took hold in the united states. This decision was also a great one. President Biden is now assuring students in debt of a "plan b" approach in order to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.
Are we starting to see the Supreme Court actually upholding the Constitution? It sure looks like it. It looks like the majority of the justices are interpreting the Constitution as it is and not inferring on it what it does not state. We saw this with the Dobbs decision last year which knocked down Roe vs Wade. Roe vs Wade was decided on the premise that women had equality and the right to privacy. How does this even add up to abortion? Where does abortion even fit in this? It made no sense and had to be overturned. Similarly, cases like Obergefell were decided on claims that equality exists and enumerated rights are granted, therefore same-sex couples can marry. The Constitution does not even mention marriage or abortion!
Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the United States continues on this path and will eventually overturn Obergefell restoring marriage as only being between one man and one woman. Today's ruling ended "Pride Month" on a sour note for the LGBTQIA community.
You can read the Court's opinions here:
21-476 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)
22-535 Department of Education v. Brown (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)
22-506 Biden v. Nebraska (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)
What do you think? Post your comment below. Remember to follow the rules so your comment can be posted.
Source:
Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist (yahoo.com)
Supreme Court injustice: ‘legal innocence’ is not enough (msn.com)
'Nuclear hypocrisy': Legal experts stunned by SCOTUS' 'weird' ruling in LGBTQ rights case (msn.com)
A Huge Win for the First Amendment (msn.com)
Biden unveils new student loan forgiveness plan after Supreme Court defeat (usatoday.com)
June 30, 2023 SCOTUS blocks Biden's student loan plan and limits LGBTQ protections (cnn.com)
What Will Happen to Your Student Loans Now - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/opinion/affirmative-action-supreme-court-repeal.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.