Web designer challenges same-sex 'marriage' mafia with Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court has long held that same-sex "marriages" are constitutional.  That hasn't stopped the LGBT mafia in Colorado from trying to force everyone to get on the same-sex "marriage" bandwagon, an issue currently before the Supreme Court.  Fortunately, there's one simple question that could help the Court understand what's really going on here.

In an odd juxtaposition of events, Biden has signed a same-sex "marriage" bill into law at the very time the Supreme Court is considering the case of Lorie Smith, a web designer who does not want to design websites for same-sex couples.  The Respect for Marriage Act attempts to gain respectability by lumping together same-sex couples with interracial couples.

Interracial marriage was indeed a crime only a few decades ago.  However, interracial marriage has been legal in all 50 states since the landmark 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia, in which the court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Interracial couples didn't then and don't now need a new law to protect a right they have enjoyed for decades, and it seems a cynical ploy to use such marriages to prop up same-sex "marriage."

As for Lorie Smith, all she wants is not required to participate.  Lorie is an evangelical Christian who emphatically believes in the biblical teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.  She also has the misfortune to live in Colorado, a state that Christian baker Jack Phillips has been fighting for years to maintain his right to express his faith through his work.

Image made using monitor by Racool_studio and gay "wedding" couples by freepik.

Colorado requires businesses that serve the public to offer equal access to everyone regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or sex.  Lorie pre-emptively sued the state because this requirement violates her free speech rights.  She seems to be taking the position of the compelled speech doctrine, which holds that the government cannot force an individual to support specific expressions.

It has always seemed to me that there is a quite simple solution to this problem.  Anything ready-made is available to anyone who comes in the door.  Anything custom-made is at the discretion of the artist.

In connection with the fight over compelled speech in the context of demands that artists must bow before the LGBT mafia, there have been several hypotheticals proposed to the Supreme Court.  I'd like to propose one of my own: would it be right to force a vegan photographer who makes instructional videos to create a video on how to kill and butcher a deer?

Pandra Selivanov is the author of The Pardon, a story of forgiveness based on the thief on the cross in the Bible.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com