In Jonathan Turley’s latest Column for The Hill he takes on the liberal mentality of rules for thee but not for me. This is especially when it comes to the rights of creatives and business owners in their practice of free speech and religious liberty.
“Eliminating … ideas is CADA’s very purpose.” Those words from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals about Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act may be some of the most honest but chilling words ever uttered in a federal opinion…https://t.co/36naT0B2TZ
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 24, 2022
The Supreme Court readies itself to hear the case of Jack Phillips. Jack is a bakery owner in Colorado who, on religious grounds, refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. His life since that decision has been one court battle after another as the LBTQ Social Justice warriors have tried their best to make his life a living hell.
But have the liberals overplayed their hand? Turley believes so but not on a religious basis, but on the grounds of free speech.
Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee
New York has given the world plenty of examples to work with on such grounds of defending the free speech of creatives and business owners. Turley rights of at least three separate cases where the courts sided with the business owners, or universities, or creatives, who cited that the beliefs of particular patron violated the conscience of the businesses owners. Giving said business owners the right to decline services or see them out of their establishments.
🎥 @MattWalshBlog gives an update on Jack Philips, the Colorado baker that the Left continues to bully, even after he won at the Supreme Court level.
FULL VIDEO ==> https://t.co/ZS46LpzGbL pic.twitter.com/BfN6AKSozH
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) June 12, 2019
Turley argues that many try to stand on a religious argument for their views or practices, but they are actually fighting for free speech. Turley writes:
“As I have previously written, both sides are mistaken. It is not a distinction drawn along religious freedom lines. It is all about free speech. If the Supreme Court were to rule against the cake shop owner, it would mean that no one would be able to refuse service based on religious objections, even though Phillips said he would sell any available cake to any customer and only objected to preparing a special cake. That decision would also apply to a Jewish bakery asked to make a “Mein Kampf” cake or an African American bakery asked to celebrate a skinhead wedding. Would they also be denied the right to refuse?”
https://twitter.com/ComplexMagLife/status/988443220563685376
The problem we have in today’s society is that the left will gleefully refuse service to the right but cry foul if the same is done to them. This is Turley’s point in his defense of free speech. the right of free speech, and the use of it, will clean u language, it will also expose you to the ire of some who would not use your business or services because of your views.
Opinion: SUNY Oswego’s open mic night was anything but ‘open’ https://t.co/jQKr0AZRgX pic.twitter.com/ucL8iS0igz
— New York Post (@nypost) May 12, 2018
Jonathan Turley’s arguments are persuasive and one, that if conservatives wish to win in future cases, we need to take into consideration. As leftist elites take over our media, political, and justice systems it is up to We The People to fight smarter and use the tools our founders laid out for us. Tools like the Bill of Rights, the convention of states, and the language of the constitution to turn the tables on our opponents.