I think it’s about time that the Supreme Court finally had the courage to rule, hopefully finally, on a frr speech/ frrdom of religion case. Just because I’m an atheist does not mean I cannot or should not supprt the 1st Amendment which guarantees both. Consider being an atheist and not having the right to speak out against religion. It really hasn’t been thar long ago where states had lawa against atheism and like some others in society, were locked firmly in the closet.

Although I haven’t heard from any of my Christian friends yet about this case being a victory for freedom of religion, that argument failed in lower court so when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, it became strictly about the freedom of speech. In this case, the freedom not to speak. The plaintiff had never refused wotk from LGBTQ+ clients the messaging conflicted with her “strongly held” (Notice how thar wording exists in all cases like this one.) religious belief.

Detractors believe, dishonestly I think, that this will lead to widespread discrimination toward the LGBTQ+ community as well as other minorities. I believe “dishonest” simply because this is always their The sky is falling!” argument. Whatever the issue, it seems to be where some go as a defense of their position. It doesn’t matter the side either, just to br clear. Left and right both use it when it appears to benefit them.

In this case, though, the plaintiff did not refuse to work because of a certain minority status, but that in the specific case, that the messaging on the website, designed by her company, could be viewed as something she agreed with and no one should be expected to be forced to agree with any position, by default, they, in fact, disagree with.

I can support that position. I wouldn’t want to be in that position as a business owner because, of course, the media will immediately imply bigotry if no outright saying so. If this were the government saying you must agree, would thar change any minds? Can anyone think of an instance when the government openly discouraged speech that violated it’s (false, as it turned out) narrative?

Imagine being jailed for having a different opinion. If we cross the line one way, it’s not far to see that all speech might be regulated. I can’t belive anyone would want that to happen but look around the world, even one of our 9ahem) closest neighbors.