It would be great if we had nine Supreme Court justices who understood the Constitution. We have six, but that’s still enough to hold the majority.

The first amendment of the Constitution prevailed today, after the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a website designer who objected to design a website promoting a gay wedding, which was requested by a client.

From NPR.org:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 long ideological lines that the First Amendment bars Colorado from “forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”

Why was this even a question? The first amendment protections for one’s religion does apply to the state of Colorado. What’s more, freedom in principle is opposed to the idea of anyone being coerced in any way. A business merely existing does not create any obligation for that business or any of its employees to take an action. If the business decides that it won’t take an action, even in exchange for money, that’s the choice of the business owner, and anyone in their employ can be expected to direct themselves in a manner consistent with their convictions.

Believe it or not, one’s religion isn’t just a name on a banner to be waved about, then promptly ignored at the dictates of some psychopath who is out to create cultural uniformity. A person’s religion actually has an influence on the way they think, and the decisions that they make. Therefore, one’s religion does influence the way they live.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said: “Ms. [Lori] Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech; Colorado seeks to compel speech she does not wish to provide. As the Tenth Circuit observed, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to compel her to create custom websites celebrating other marriages she does not. … If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in ‘remedial . . . training,’ filing periodic compliance reports, and paying monetary fines. That is an impermissible abridgement of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.”

This is the United States, after all. This is a place where freedom of speech is recognized by its foundational document. Compelled speech, by its nature, cannot be free.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

Sotomayor’s use of the term “protected class” implies privilege. The ideals of our nation uphold equality of all people in the sight of God, and under the law. There is no special class that can compel anyone else to either speak or take an action, and no one can be deprived of their God-given freedoms without due process.

A Supreme Court Justice is expected to know that.

She would, as you might expect, attempt to frame this as part of a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities”. This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, as there are no gender minorities, there are only men and women, and the “sexual minorities” she is alluding to are actually sexual behaviors, and is actually is valid to question the sociological impact of these behaviors.

But even if she’s dishonest and misinformed, at least Sotomayor isn’t getting what she wanted.

Smith who believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, said she wanted to create a custom web-page business for weddings, but could not do so because under Colorado law she would have been forced to create websites that violate her faith. Colorado said it didn’t want to dictate what Smith said in her web designs, but that if her business is open to the public–as it is–it had to serve everyone.

What kind of state compels a business to serve anyone and everyone, just by virtue of being open to the public? I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Is the idea that, in the act of opening or being employed by a business, a person forfeits their personal autonomy? Did the state of Colorado really believe that there was a point in which an individual, complete with freedoms recognized by the Constitution and the superordinate principles of all of western civilization (and not only the United States), was no longer a partaker of those freedoms by virtue of being employed?

Or perhaps this is actually about power. Perhaps certain people get a thrill out of commanding people, and watching them work because they are compelled to. If so, they need to learn pretty quick that having money does not give them power over everyone. Not everyone is willing to give themselves up just for money.

On Friday, the court ruled against the state and for the web designer in a decision that could have profound consequences in Colorado and 29 other states that have laws requiring businesses open to the public to serve everyone, regardless or race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

Or, if NPR were to frame the matter more correctly, the freedoms of people and businesses to act in consideration of their consciences has been recognized in a society that proclaimed these principles to begin with.

A sincere “thank you” to the six Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the web designer for knowing a few things about the country we live in.