The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is first for a reason. Free speech, and the protection of free speech, is the foundation of our democracy. Many nations boast about how freely they promote unbridled discourse. It’s a smokescreen.
As soon as leaders see the rhetoric as a challenge to their power, so goes the support for “free speech.” It equates to, “You can speak freely, as long as what you say doesn’t contradict what we say.” Doesn’t that sound eerily similar to the radical rhetoric of the far left?
If Americans need a little proof, just look at the recent surge of the cancel-culture craziness. Americans are no longer free to speak their minds. Poor little lefties are fragile. When someone says something even remotely harsh, it hurts their feelings. It must be stopped.
Censoring the opinions and beliefs of another is the polar opposite of free speech. It subdues free speech. It buries the First Amendment. Furthermore, it undermines our democracy. Another core principle in the First Amendment is freedom to express our religious beliefs.
Free speech and freedom of religion go hand in hand. They’re together in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment for a reason. No American is compelled to believe anyone else’s religious belief. But that key principle in the constitution is now at risk.
But the U.S. Supreme Court may be asked to confirm this inalienable right. By the end of the present court’s term, a decision will be made concerning the First Amendment, specifically on agreeing with someone’s religious beliefs.
This case revolves around two cases involving a Colorado cake baker. Jack Phillips is a Colorado baker. He was harassed by radical leftists for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. It’s his business. One would think it’s his constitutional right to work for whomever he chooses.
Radical leftists in the state of Colorado didn’t think so. They sued Phillips. His sin was being a Christian. By refusing to bake a cake acknowledging that same-sex marriage is okay, Phillips somehow violated the couple’s rights.
He didn’t, but they still attacked his right to his own religious beliefs. Therefore, they sued Phillips for “not baking” a cake because it was for a gay wedding, which his religious conscience did not condone. This first case made its way to the Supreme Court.
Basically, the Court ignored First Amendment rights. It ruled that while the commission members were dismissive of religious beliefs, but the law was not unconstitutional. But the radical leftists weren’t done attacking Jack Phillips.
A new request came into his bakery for a blue frosted cake with a pink interior. This would seem to be no problem. But eventually, “Autumn Scardina” told Phillips what the cake was for. Scardina, a biological man who decided to identify as a woman, wanted to celebrate “his” bizarre transformation.
Phillips does not agree with the transgender ideology. It’s his constitutional right. But when he rightfully chose to not bake a cake for Scardina, Scardina sued him. Doesn’t this sound familiar? It’s the trademark leftist rhetoric.
Believe in what you want as long as what you believe in doesn’t disagree with what we believe in. If that sounds like confusing nonsense, that’s because it is. There’s yet another case that intertwines religious freedom with free speech. This case is likely headed to the Supreme Court.
It involves a woman named Lorie Smith. Smith is a Christian. She operates 303 Creative. 303 Creative creates websites for upcoming weddings. As a devout Christian, Smith believes that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It’s her right to believe that way.
But not according to Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission (CCRC). They insist that Smith “must” post speech advocating a belief that she disagrees with. In essence, Smith’s website must communicate, or speak, the ideas and beliefs of a radical lifestyle.
Smith doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage, but she has to use her business to say that this type of odd union is okay in her “god’s” eyes. It’s not. What the left is saying is that there is no room for disagreement. Americans cannot express their personal or religious convictions.
The case was ruled 2 to 1 by a lower court. It is set to be heard by the Supreme Court. This will be a landmark case for free expression. The lower court’s ruling said Smith must say what she doesn’t believe because someone else told her to.
That’s blatantly violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to rekindle faith in our constitution. Addressing the foundational amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it could be one of the most important decisions in recent memory.