The Supreme Court is preparing to strike down forced speech

In a case argued at the Supreme Court this week, a Colorado website designer appealed a decision from lower courts requiring her to create wedding websites for gay couples in violation of her religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Court is likely to reverse the lower court decision, and allow her to decline to create such websites. 

The liberal minority on the Court and the liberal media argue that such a decision will lead to a new Jim Crow era where the providers of public accommodation are allowed to refuse services to people on the basis of their sexual preferences or skin color. 

That argument is incorrect and probably not even sincere. Here’s why.

The First Amendment of course prohibits the government from banning speech. Less recognized is that the First Amendment also prohibits the government from compelling speech. That means it’s unconstitutional for the government to prohibit you from voicing support for gay marriage and it’s equally unconstitutional for the government to require you to voice such support. 

Continue reading

Man Up and Marry Her

Image

Newman

“If you’re playing a poker game and you look around the table and can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.” — Paul Newman

“Basically married” is how a friend described her relationship with her live-in boyfriend on Valentine’s Day a few years ago. The combined age of this “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” was over 80. She’d always played her “basically married” card in a casual and well-practiced sort of way.

But it was a bluff. Like most women (no, not all), she wanted to have a family. She could half-convince her friends that she was “basically married,” but she could not convince even herself that she was basically a mother.

The game was getting old, and so was she. Biological clocks don’t bluff, and hers told her it was almost too late for a winning hand.

She’s had lots of company. Continue reading