White House Has Convoluted View of Constitution

We previously wrote about how Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has slapped down to the Colorado Solicitor General of Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakemaker, who was forced to go through “re-education” after refusing to design a custom cake to celebrate the same-sex wedding because it was against his religious beliefs.

Gorsuch made these remarks in a different case that involved a Christian web creator, Lorie Smith. Colorado claims that her is a design business that qualifies as an “public accommodation” so therefore she can't refuse the request for an individual website design that promotes a same-sex wedding since it is against her beliefs, which is why she's required to design the site. It's essentially a government's persuasive speech, since it's an explicit statement that the creator has created.

“Mr. Phillips must have gone through a reeducation course, didn't he?” Gorsuch asked Colorado solicitor general Eric Olson. Olson replied to say that the program was a training to teach him about Colorado law.

“Some would call that a reeducation program,” Gorsuch stated.

“I strongly disagree,” the defense attorney responded.

“Isn't religious belief a protected characteristic?” Gorsuch asked, to which Olson replied, “yes.”

Phillip's sentence from his punishment by the Colorado commission also contained the requirement to be able to submit quarterly reports about the progress of his business's compliance. 

The following Monday, Kristin Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Christian web-designer Lorie Smith, pointed out that as a result of the state's “aggressive enforcement,” her client's “speech has been chilled for six years.”

The White House doesn't have an issue with the government's persuasive speech. As White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated, they believe it's fine to do it.

“Courts have recognized that we can recog-that we can require businesses…to service people, regardless of their backgrounds, even when that means businesses must, incidentally, engage in speech which they disagree upon.”

She's now being a bit tense in a way, regarding the language used and the speech in the case is not “incidental” — it's the core of the petition. The issue she's referring to is the law of public accommodation. However, the government cannot compel speech. Which is why SCOTUS is looking into this matter currently.

How can the White House talk about the Constitution and then claim they have the power to force speech? Or violate religious beliefs? Who are the fascists ? The answer is always the Biden team, who have no problem breaking the Constitution to accomplish the goals they wish to achieve.

We also saw the White House's nefarious strategy when it came to Twitter. When the liberals were in control of Twitter in the past, as Elon Musk has exposed, they could contact the Biden team or the DNC could reach them to have things they did not like to be suppressed. If people complained about being blocked from Twitter, we were told by Liberals that Twitter was considered to be a “private business” and it could do whatever it wanted with respect to its users (despite the fact that there was a clear collusion between the government and Twitter in the background). Now it appears that Elon Musk is the CEO and Twitter has fallen out of their grasp, they need to be able to monitor and examine it to ensure that he follows the guidelines they'd like.

They believe they have the ability to dictate to us, and this is the whole point of control. Karine Jean-Pierre doesn't feel any shame in admitting that she's doing it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

John Kennedy Has Hot Take on Biden’s Energy Policy

Gorsuch Hammers Solicitor General During Oral Arguments