I’ve been reliably told that this is how Democracy ends. Hot Air’s David Strom says the 303 Creative ruling is far more important than the affirmative action one, since the former affects way more people than the latter, and, he’s right, because it is about free speech and individual freedom, as determined by the US Bill Of Rights. That people should not be compelled to comply with speech they do not agree with them. And then there’s this nutjob, which the opinion piece forgets to mention is a Democrat
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes tells U.S. Supreme Court to shove it
Colorado has a law on the books that says, in simple terms, a business open to the public can’t discriminate against gay people.
The radical right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last week saying that, yes, it can.
The court took the side of a web designer in Colorado who said it was her First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
Arizona has a law much like Colorado’s.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced in no uncertain terms that her office is determined to enforce it.
The Supreme Court be damned.
Someone’s looking for a suit, and should really read the Arizona Constitution, as well, starting with Article 2, Section 3 about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, followed by section 6, freedom of speech, then section 12 “Liberty of conscience; appropriations for religious purposes prohibited; religious freedom”
She said in her statement, “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”
So she doesn’t want to follow the Constitution? Funny how Democrats are always willing to ditch it when it Offends them. Isn’t this a violation of her membership of the Arizona bar, being a lawyer? Someone should file an ethics complaint. And, she doesn’t even understand the ruling: the Supreme Court did not say its ok to discriminate. It said the service provider is entitled to protection under the first amendment. That’s freedom of speech and expression. That’s different than freedom to discriminate. Especially when there are plenty of web designers, people who make cakes, etc.
There is a simple Constitutional provision for this. Of course they know that most Americans are totally ignorant of their Constitution which is sad. That is their greatest weapon. The Constitutional provision I speak of is called an Affidavit. The affidavit should plainly state what constitutional provision was violated, in this case it’s a violation to oath of office. The defendant has a certain time to reply. If they do not reply then it is considered an admission to the charges and the person can legally be removed from office. The oath is not a simply formality. It is a promise conduct to the people in the performance of their office to follow the precepts of the Constitution. They only have to violate it once.
For more free and helpful information on the Constitution Rights visit: https://citizensoftheamericanconstitution.net/
Courts: It is unconstitutional to force a Web designer to support what they don’t like.
Left: We will do it anyway. Bake the damned cake.
There is no tolerate for the Left. There is no live and let live. Everyone must comply with whatever agenda they push. As long as one person doesn’t wave the Pride flag with sufficient enthusiasm, there is still work to be done.
The designer didn’t refuse service. She simply declined to produce a particular statement. It’s difficult to understand how the left doesn’t understand the difference.
Because they don’t want to.