20 Burst results for "Lori Smith"
The Eric Metaxas Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Welcome back. I'm talking to Jenna Ellis. Jenna, you have a podcast. It's the Jenna Ellis show dot com. Is that where people can find it? Yes, on the Salem podcast network. And so rumble or our non friends at YouTube or anywhere you stream audio. The Jenna Ellis show dot com. Okay, you did an in depth show recently on the Supreme Court and this argument on Monday about yet another Colorado situation. So I want to talk about that. But you were teeing it up a moment ago while we were off the year by saying that thanks to Donald Trump actually doing what he said and appointing constitutionalists and originalists to the Supreme Court and fighting for them, including for Kavanaugh. Because of that, we have a Supreme Court that actually believes in the constitution, which gives us a fighting chance going forward when loony people in places like Colorado decide to go full on Marxist, thank goodness we can appeal to the Supreme Court, which is effectively what just happened. Absolutely. And the greatest generational win of my lifetime and possibly even your lifetime Eric, of course, was the overturn of roe versus wade, which would never have happened, but for Donald Trump and you talk about contrast and clarity to have a Supreme Court that was willing to recognize state sovereignty and the limits of power on the federal level is truly remarkable. And so when we look at this case, it's three O three creative versus Elena's. And the issue in that case, I'm from Colorado, so I am very familiar and actually was part of the team that sincerely advocated for the state legislature at that time where we had just one seat majority in the Senate for Republicans to have a sunset, meaning a total defunding of the Colorado civil rights commission,
The Ben Shapiro Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"They don't just sit out there somewhere on the street corner. We're not talking about an actual publicly funded service that the government provides. It must be applied equally. What we're talking about, when they say goods and services in the social sphere, they mean you. They mean that you should be forced to do whatever the government wants you to do. Yamiche alcindor, who is supposedly a journalist for NPR, but essentially is just a propaganda a propagandist on behalf of the left. She says that the web designer in three O three creative is discriminatory and is looking to discriminate, because this is what it's all about. It's on you Brown Jackson asks, if you have a photographer who says, I want to take pictures and recreate the christmases from the 19 50s. And I say, I only want to put white children with Santa and not black families. Is that going to be allowed? Now, the lawyers for Lori Smith say that there is a line in that line is that you can't compel anyone to have free speech that's related to something that goes against their personal convictions, but in some ways, critics would say this is a very slippery slope. You have civil rights groups who are saying what Lori Smith is really looking for is a license to discriminate. Right, it's a slippery slope to First Amendment activity. It's a slippery slope to people being able to make decisions. The government doesn't love. Or that I may not love. I think Michelle syndrome not love. But guess what? That is called freedom still. People do bad things, and the government is not always have the compel, the power to compel people to do good things. And that, by the way, is overall a good thing because if the government has the power to compel everybody to do quote unquote, the right things, then that essentially means tyranny, because the right things, according to me, are not going to be the right things, according to yamiche alcindor. I would assume. Well, the conservative justice again, because they are attempting to both uphold anti discrimination laws that are far too over broad by Colorado's. And also to uphold a constitutional structure that essentially was overturned by a lot of these anti discrimination laws as again mentioned by Christopher Caldwell and age of enlightenment because of that, they're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. And they'll come up with a line here and the line will be a line that's based on expressive contact versus non expressive conduct, or it'll be based on, for example, immutable characteristics versus non immutable characteristics, although I highly doubt they're going to touch that in the aftermath of a Burj film. I guess the line that I'm going to come down on is some sort of vague line about what constitutes expressive conduct versus non expressive contact or artistic performance versus non artistic performance or whatever else the hell they come up with. But everybody understands the consequences if the left gets its way. So justice Gorsuch says, the consequences are basically that the government now gets to essentially re-educate everybody. He says, Jack Phillips and masterpiece cake shop under Colorado's anti discrimination law was essentially sent to a re-education program. But here they are defining their service by excluding someone based on their that's the religious belief. I changed their religious belief, right? No, but can you protect religious beliefs under the statute, right? That is one of the protected characteristics in theory. And in practice, if it wasn't in practice, we had heard about it over the past several years and my friend has pointed to no example where this has been applied to mister Phillips did go through a re-education training program pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, mister Olsen? He went through a process that ensured he was familiar. It was a re-education program, right? It was not a re-education program. What do you call it? It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law. Ah, so ridge education program. Justice Alito, he points out, you know, guys, it turns out that you're conflating interracial marriage and same sex marriage which, by the way, the Senate of the United States with the approval of 12 feckless Republicans did the same thing. They passed a bill in front of same sex marriage as federal law, and in that bill it also said interracial marriage, innately equating the two, which is absurd. It is not a redefinition of marriage to include people of different races and man woman child. That's not a redefinition of marriage. In fact, for virtually all of human history, there has been racial mixing in the confines of marriage. But here is justice Alito, questioning why the left is trying to conflate these two. We know the answer why they're trying to conflate these two because again, they're obliterating the distinctions between immutable characteristics and behavior between private and public behavior. All for the purposes of centralized government power over your life. In light of what justice Kennedy wrote in obergefell about honorable people who object to same sex marriage, do you think it's fair to equate opposition to same sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage? Yes, because in how the law applies, not in the discussion with folks because, of course, honorable people have different views on this issue. But I think when you look at what justice Kennedy said, the way to honor that requirement is as this court has set forth in Fulton in masterpiece of having a rigorous interrogation to make sure that there are neutral and generally applicable laws applied, in fact, that way that don't single out religion. Okay, again, what the left is saying, pretty openly here, is that if you have a belief in traditional modes of sin and nonsense, if you have any sort of belief that conflicts, forget about religion, if you have any sort of belief that conflicts with what the left wishes you to believe about anything. And this means that they can force you to do what they want you to do. And tomorrow, the left could put into law and anti discrimination statute that says that you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of environmental politics, for example. And then your corporation and you're an oil corporation. They say, well, if you don't do our bidding, this is discrimination on the basis of our environmental policy. The left has no moral limits when it comes to this sort of stuff. What limits will the left draw? What limits when it comes to cracking down on free expression or freedom of association? Does the left draw? The answer is none. There are no limits. It is whatever the left decides today is the rule. And that is the rule that everyone must live by. And this is the inherent danger in giving this much power to government in the first place, no matter whether it was well motivated as it was, I'm sure, in the Civil Rights Act. And as I say, there's a big difference in the Civil Rights Act between provisions of the Civil Rights Act aimed at stopping government, sponsored discrimination, which should have been illegal in the first place, segregation should never have been legal in, for example, plessy versus Ferguson, or whether you're attempting to reach into the private sphere in obliterate the rights of the individual guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the name of an overarching anti discrimination viewpoint that is largely rooted in a secular left wing morality. The Supreme Court is going to come down the right way in this case. The warning that I'm giving you is that it will not always be this way. And the reason it will not always be this way is because inexorably, the logic of the left is more consistent here than the logic of the right. The logical the right is that you should be able to pick and choose the government to be able to pick and choose which sort of activities you get to engage in, but there are certain ones that you can't. There's certain ones that you can. There are certain carve outs and there are certain car routes and left just says we control everything. We control every bit of this, and we have the power to compel it.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"But I want to reiterate what I was saying at the beginning of our one. Yeah. First of all, we need you to go to metaxas talk dot com and click on the banner. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to harp on this over and over until you go there. I'm going to hold my breath because this is such a sweet thing that we get to participate in freeing slaves. I can not, I guess I can't communicate it more effectively than I have tried to communicate it. But it's a beautiful thing. And we need to sometimes do something. You can't even imagine what it would be like to live in a world where there's slavery where someone you know is gone. They're enslaved. They're going through horrors. The idea that that is happening just because it's not happening in our neck of the Woods. It is happening to people no less real than we are. And real quick, they free some people that have been enslaved for decades, not just years, which is certainly bad enough, but decades and $250 can free a slave. So CSI is the organization, but to find them, you just go to our website and metaxas talk dot com, metaxas talk dot com. And you know Alvin, before we go to our lawyer guest, Jake Warner. I just want to say what I talked about at the beginning of the show about the supertramp song. I say this is the show about everything. Because God does not want us to live in boxes. He doesn't want to say, well, this is my religious life. This is my spiritual life, and everything's connected. And all of reality points to God. And that's a fact. God does not live in some religious corner. All of reality created the universe and all of it points to him. Every good thing, every true thing, every beautiful thing. So I mentioned the supertramp song, anything beautiful. God can speak through anything. And he wants us to live our lives in that way. He does not want us to kind of like say, well, I'm living my life over here, but then there's a spiritual side. That's nonsense. You're supposed to bring him into every part of life. And that's kind of the goal, right, is to live your faith out with that kind of integrity in every part of life. All right, we're going to shut up and here we go. I'm going to play my interview with Jake Warner. Very important here it is, folks. Listen in. Hey there, folks. Some of you know that the alliance defending freedom today begins argument in the Supreme Court of the United States an important new case. It's called three O three creative. I wanted to talk to them about it and we have Jake Warner, senior counsel with ADF to speak with us. Jake Warner, welcome. Thanks for having me on the show. Tell us what is this case that begins today at the Supreme Court that you at ADF are going to be arguing. Tell us about for people who aren't familiar with this because it's an important case. Lori Smith is a graphic artist and website designer. She owns three O three creative located in Colorado. And she wants to create custom websites and graphics celebrating God's design for marriage. But Lori lives in Colorado, where she is unwelcome to do that. The state would force her to promote messages that go against her deeply held beliefs about marriage. You remember the story about Jack Phillips and Laurie Smith saw what the state was doing to Jack Phillips prosecuting him all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and wondered, am I under threat? And indeed, she was. So here we are going to the Supreme Court today, arguing Lori's case saying that free speech is for everyone. The government doesn't have the right to force anyone to say something that they don't believe. And this is a critical principle to protect all Americans. If we don't think the government should coerce Lori, but at the same time, we don't think the government should force an LGBT website designer to promote messages on their website. So go against their deepest beliefs. So this case is really about free speech for everyone. And we're hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to affirm that right for all Americans. Well, what's fascinating to me is that I think any reasonable person understands that this is pretty simple in America, we don't force people to say things or do things that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. We understand that. Everybody understands that. But there are places in the United States of America, like the state of Colorado, where they don't seem to care about this, and they are perfectly willing to bully people and to persecute people whom they choose to persecute. In other words, they seem to single out somebody like Jack Phillips or Laurie Smith, who are Christians. They don't seem to go after a Muslims or orthodox Jews who share the same beliefs about marriage, but they seem to target these kind of people. And when this happens, your only recourse is to say, we have to go to the Supreme Court because Colorado is not protecting our religious liberties, but it's an amazing thing to me that we're at that point where we have to go literally to the Supreme Court of the United States of America to get these basic basic liberties defended. Yeah, you're exactly right. Over the past ten years, what we've seen are activists and government officials targeting people that they disagree with. Jack Phillips has been in court over ten years now. And ADF represents artist all across the country. Photographers up and down the east coast filmmakers in Minnesota calligraphers and painters in Arizona. And many of these cases, the court is now getting it right affirming the right of all Americans to say what they believe without fear of government punishment. But now we have Lori's case, three O three creative going before the Supreme Court today. And we're hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to make that the law of the land, holding that the First Amendment protects the right of all artists to say what they believe without fear of government punishment. That rule will protect not only Lori and people who share her views on marriage, but also people who hold holding different views on marriage and some of life's biggest issues..
AP News Radio
Justices spar in latest clash of religion and gay rights
"The Supreme Court is in its latest clash over religion and gay rights in the case of a Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for a gay couples. Lori Smith says ruling against her would force artists of all types to do work against their beliefs. The high court's conservative majority sounded sympathetic with Neil Gorsuch describing Smith as someone who will and does sell websites to everyone. But she won't sell a website that requires her to express a view about marriage that she finds offensive to her religious beliefs. The big question from Sonia Sotomayor and the liberals. How about people who don't believe in interracial marriage? Or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? What's where's the line? Colorado and most other states have a law saying if a product is offered to the public, it must be offered to all customers. The high court has sided with religious plaintiffs in a series of cases, Sagar Meghani, Washington.
WTOP
"lori smith" Discussed on WTOP
"Fairfax, college park at 49, and we're at 45° in northwest Washington. Now at one 41, the latest clash between gay rights and religious rights played out before the U.S. Supreme Court today. Today's argument involved a Christian graphic design artist from Colorado, who objects to designing websites for gay couples because of her religious beliefs. Let's dig a little deeper on this, joining us live now, Robert Barnes, Supreme Court reporter for The Washington Post. Great to have you back. Robert, can you explain to us a little bit more about what each side is arguing in this case? Yes. Well, this is sort of a follow up. You might remember to 2018, where the court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker, who didn't want to create a custom wedding cake for a same sex couple. That was thought to be in violation, Colorado, said it was in violation of their law that protects against discrimination. And one of the categories is sexual orientation. They say that the same is true with Lori smith's plan to create wedding websites. They say that she can't tell same sex couples that she won't work for them, that that is discrimination. But she says that she's creating speech sort of custom designed websites that reflect her viewpoint and that she can't create a viewpoint that says that same sex marriage is okay because that's not what her religion teaches her. Did the justices press for an answer to how to resolve this issue without opening up discrimination to a wide variety of people where folks may have disagreements. Well, excuse me, there was a lot of that in the discussion. And, you know, there was some indications that the justices might want to look for a narrow ruling. I would say overall the conservative justices were quite sympathetic to smith's argument, the liberal justices were not. And justice Sotomayor, for instance, said it would be the first time that the court had sort of sanctioned the behavior that she found discriminatory against race or because of sexual orientation. And she was quite critical. You know, you mentioned the previous case that this sort of piggyback off of involving the Colorado baker. How does this case today differ from that case? Well, they found in that case that there was some religious bias upon the part of the Colorado human rights commissioners who looked at the case. And they said that they ruled for Phillips on that manner because they said there was some, well, awkward and perhaps even a biased comments made about his religion. This case doesn't have that. It's, in fact, she hasn't created such a website. No one has asked her to do it. She's seeking what's called a pre enforcement ruling that the law shouldn't apply to her. I should also say I thought it was interesting. There was a lot of discussion about how do you differentiate this from interracial marriage or someone who might object as justice Sotomayor talked about to disabled people getting married. And so that's, I think, an example of what the court is going to have to think through as it decides this case. Robert, we appreciate your time, thanks, as always, that is Robert Barnes Supreme Court reporter for The Washington Post. The wait is over. DraftKings
WGN Radio
"lori smith" Discussed on WGN Radio
"Today. The bears they lost to Green Bay 28 19, the hawks they lost to the New York islanders three zero, the bulls, they lost the Sacramento one ten to one O one in college basketball northwestern, they beat Michigan state 70 to 63. WGN traffic are expressway and hallways are in good shape right now. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today on whether businesses may turn down services to same sex weddings. Mark Mayfield reports. Lori Smith, a Colorado designer wants to decline to create wedding websites for same sex couples because those marriages are in conflict with her religious beliefs. However, state officials say the Colorado anti discrimination act goes for all businesses, making it illegal to refuse public services based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, central orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. A ruling is expected by June of 2023. I'm Mark Mayfield. Will the state says its law is about equal access and doesn't suppress any messages that smith's business might express. The Senate could take up what's being described as significant marijuana legislation along with other must pass urine bills. Axios is reporting that a group of bipartisan senators led by majority leader Chuck Schumer has gotten the go ahead from the Justice Department to move forward on legislation that would allow cannabis companies to access banking institutions. Grants for state expungement of pessimism on a convictions are also on the table. I will Republican senator Joni Ernst says Democrats made the wrong decision to move, the first in the nation caucus from her state, the South Carolina. Democrats have really given Middle America the middle finger. Ernst told Fox News, the Democratic National Committee's move alienates working class voters, the DNC said they made the change due to a lack of diversity in Iowa, as well as South Carolina's role in turning around President Biden's 2020 campaign. Ernst says Republicans will keep their first caucus in Iowa, which is held the honorary right to the first in the
WTOP
"lori smith" Discussed on WTOP
"Producer, and here are the top stories we're following for you this evening. The last race of the 2022 midterms is about to be decided. Stacy Lynn. Ahead of Tuesday's runoff Senate election in Georgia, Vernon Jones, who's a former democratic lawmaker, and now a Republican, says Herschel Walker would have easily defeated democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock if he had done just one thing. One of the biggest blunders is that Herschel campaign did not put into place an apparatus to go directly for the black vote Early voting was record breaking in the state close to 1.9 million people already cast their ballots. Stacy Lynn, CBS News. It's a big shake up. The Democratic National Committee has a plan to change the order of their presidential nomination process in 2024. CBS News correspondent christiane Benavidez has more from Miami. Democrats moved closer to shaking up their presidential primary calendar ahead of 2024. The DNC rules and bylaws committee voted to support kicking off the primary season with South Carolina on February 3rd of that year. This proposal reflects the best of our party as a whole. And it will continue to make our party and our country stronger. The seismic shift would take away the Iowa caucuses longtime premier spot. The other man speaking in that cut was DNC chair Jamie Harrison. The Supreme Court is about to confront a new elections case that could dramatically alter voting in 2024 and beyond. The court will hear arguments Wednesday. In a case from North Carolina, where Republican efforts to draw congressional districts in their favor were blocked by a democratic majority on the state Supreme Court. The question for the high court is whether state courts should have oversight on whether the rules of congressional elections are constitutional. The Supreme Court is also going to hear a Colorado case centering around business owner Lori Smith. She says she should not have to work for same sex weddings based on her religious beliefs. Olivia young. Colorado has a public accommodation law requiring businesses to provide services to anyone. So even though Smith has not been asked to make a wedding website for a same sex couple, she is suing the Colorado civil rights commission, saying the law violates her constitutional right to free speech. Colorado is not only telling me what I can't say, they're telling me what I must say. On the other side, you Colorado attorney general's office worries a ruling for Smith would open the door for businesses to discriminate against any group. In 2018, another Colorado business owner took a similar case to the court, a baker and Lakewood won in one in the high court after refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The Senate's top Democrat his blasting former president Trump for some recent comments and he's not the only one. Senator Chuck Schumer says Donald
Gun Talk
"lori smith" Discussed on Gun Talk
"Um. Are you sure I'm gonna end up going to jail? Maybe. Santa Clara, California, home to Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley. Los Angeles is silicone valley. It did for deal. Sheriff Lori Smith resigned from her post as sheriff of Santa Clara sheriff's office on Monday she's about to be found guilty of selling concealed carry permits. If you made campaign donations to her election campaign, you could get permit. If you are connected, if you are famous, if you are a VIP, you could get a permit. Nobody else got permits. This is a civil trial, but we don't know if there's going to be action in terms of a criminal trial on this. There's certainly could be. Let me take a minute and tell you what was supposed to be on the show, and then I, at the last minute, pulled this interview. I spent a little time talking with doctor Michael Siegel. He's from Tufts University. And he's doing research that's funded by 97%. A supposed group of gun owners, which supposedly is saying that 97% of gun owners favor more gun control who want universal background checks favor red flag laws. I've seen this so many times in the past. And in every time it's a fake group, put together by gun control money, Bloomberg type money. I may not be Bloomberg in this case. Funded by Democrats, the idea being to get the media to pair this to get the public to think, yeah, even good owners want more gun control. That seems reasonable. That would be common sense, which is what they want to do. They want to change the lens. They want to change the conversation where if you don't agree with this, you must be an extremist. What got to me in this conversation was the way that doctor Siegel kept saying, well, we want to look at opportunities to perhaps undo some gun control laws and the ones that don't really affect public safety. That wouldn't negatively impact public safety. I heard this over and over during the conversation. Of course, I reject the whole idea that there are idi gun control laws that enhance public safety. I don't think there are. I mean, you know, my position, you know, my compromise position is we will repeal half the gun control laws now. We'll go back and appeal the rest of them later. And then, of course, he talks about as they tend to do. We're looking for a compromise here. So really, I asked him I said, you know, over the years, compromise has always been at least from the gun ban industry. We gun owners give up something and you get more gun control, but the compromise is that you don't get all the gun control you want. So you see that as some sort of compromise. And I said, well, okay, so what do we get out of it? If it's compromised, got owners got to get something out of this deal, all right? What are we getting for gun rights? And here's workout interesting. And here's where in the next two weeks we'll know something more because I've got to make an announcement from this group. He said, well, we're actually looking at and you've got to be careful about this. This is where it takes a little bit more thinking than what 1st may jump into your head. He says, you know, we're thinking that maybe there's really no reason for assault weapon bans. We could get rid of those. And in the back of my head, I'm hearing ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, pay attention, warning bells, morning bells. Danger will Robinson. What do you mean? We think we could get rid of assault weapon bands. And then he says, we're looking at, of course, with the Bruin decision blah blah blah. Oh, I see what you guys are doing. You know that all the so called assault weapon bands. The band's own semi-automatic gun. You know there are all going to fall in court. You know, all those laws are going to be ruled unconstitutional. So you're going to stake out that ground and say, look, we're reasonable people. As our compromise will give you those. Knowing that they're already gone, they have no prayer of holding on to those bands. They have no prayer of holding on to magazine capacity limits. Those are going to go away as well. So what they're doing, interesting. We will appear to be reasonable. We'll offer these up as our compromise. They don't have anything to offer because they're gone anyway. And what we're going to get in return is national registration of guns. Because that's what universal background checks are. Where it's the end of private sales of guns. Couldn't sell a gun to a friend, couldn't even give a gun to a relative. Without going through the background check system. And the only way to enforce this new national law would be all guns would have to be registered. Otherwise, it simply wouldn't work. So this group is 97% in look, there are some people gun rights people who are going to appear at their new seminar. They're going to be holding in a couple of weeks. They want to watch that and see how that goes.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"What's amazing to me, Kelly, is that this is happening in places like Colorado. In other words, you have these bastions of what can we call it illiberal where they are targeting people. It seems obvious they're targeting people because if I go to a Muslim baker and say, hey, pal, I got some money here and I want you to create something that is an anti Islamic message and shut up and do it or I'm coming after you. Colorado would not support me in that. They would say, well, that's not right. And if is there being really selective because obviously folks with biblical beliefs like Lori would say, well, I can't celebrate same sex marriage. I can love people that I have different views with, but you're asking me to participate in that. I can't do that. This is a basic thing. I think most Americans understand this. So it seems to me that places like Colorado with Jack Phillips. They're particularly hostile to people of faith. And if it weren't for you in ADF, people of faith would literally lose their businesses. That's right, Eric, and they're going after people like Lori and Jack Phillips, and it's not just happening in Colorado, we're seeing it happen across the country where governments are targeting artists trying to force them to violate their convictions, people like Lori, who serve everyone, but can't promote all messages. And they're threatening them with jail time with up to even 6 figure fines for vacation of their business licenses. And you're right. Ultimately, the government shouldn't force any of us. For us in LGBT graphic designer to create art that violates their convictions, it shouldn't force a Democrat speechwriter to write for the Republican platform, regardless of who we are or what our beliefs are, the government should protect each of us and our ability to live and to work and to create consistent with those convictions to speak consistent with those convictions. And so that's what we're asking the Supreme Court to do is to uphold the free speech rights of Lori Smith and the free speech rights that belong to every single one of us as Americans. So Lori, can you talk about your case? What was it that triggered this that where you had to turn to ADF? What triggered my case almost a 6 years ago, it's been quite a journey, is that the state is censoring my speech, is compelling speech. So as I looked around at the way that Colorado was treating others, like you mentioned Jack Phillips, other people of faith specifically, I really didn't feel like I had much of a choice. I want to control the content of my own speech. Everyone should be free to do that, whether your views on marriage or other topics are the same as mine are different. So I took a stand, not only to protect my own freedoms, but I recognize that what the state is going after impacts me, but it impacts everyone. It impacts future generations, people who might be raising kids now. If they want to follow my steps one day and be a designer, they should have the freedom to control the content of their own speech. I'm just, I'm really astonished that this is happening in America. Most people understand this is anti American. It's not just un American. It's anti American. And that we have people that are vicious, they don't really care about American values. They don't care about what's fair. And I would say that most Americans that I know, they don't believe that these things are right. But these things are happening. These are hostile people and if it weren't feeling lines defending freedom, we're all in big trouble. So I want to tell you folks again, you need to go to metaxas talk dot com, click on the banner, help, or this is coming for you. It's coming for me. That's the way it goes. We'll be right back. The letter of that you tell me, Eric, why is relief factor so successful at lowering or eliminating pain? I'm often asked that question, the owners of relief factor tell me they believe our bodies were designed to heal. That's right, designed to heal, and I agree with them. So the doctors who formulated relief factor for them selected the four best ingredients, yes, 100% drug free ingredients, each helps your body deal with inflammation. Each of the four ingredients deals with inflammation from a different metabolic pathway, and that right there approaching from four different angles may be why so many people find such wonderful relief. So if you've got back pain, shoulder neck hip knee or foot pain from exercise or just getting older, you should order the three week quick start discounted to only 1995 to see if it will work for you. It works for me. It has for about 70% of the half a million people who've tried it and have ordered more, go to relief factor dot com or call 800 for relief to find out about this offer, feel the difference..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"As you know, we are doing an exciting campaign with the alliance defending freedom. Why is it exciting because the alliance defending freedom or heroes, they are fighting for your liberty for your religious liberty in the courts. Do they get money from the federal government to do that? No. They make money doing that. No, they do this because they believe in freedom. And we believe in them and what they're doing and we want to give you an opportunity to help them, you need to help them. You need to go as I've mentioned many times to metaxas to talk dot com and click on the banner. You've got to do that today. To convince you, I wanted to bring on senior counsel with the alliance defending freedom, Kelly, fedorak, Kelly, did I even pronounce that close to correctly? You were very close. It's fedora. It's what? It's fedora, like fedora with the cave is in height. It's a rough one. I'm excited to introduce you in ADF to a lot of my listeners because I've known what you all are doing for years. And people always ask me, what can I do? What can I do right now where they're being going crazy? I say, well, here's a number of things you could do. One of the things you can do is give to the alliance defending freedom. And I'm not making that up. I'm not trying to be clever. If you actually care about liberty in America, giving something to ADF at metaxas talk dot com. Folks really, it's important. So Kelly talked to us about the case about any case you want to talk about, but I want to get to Laurie Smith. I know she's waiting in the wings to talk about her case as well. But give my audience an understanding of what you guys are dealing with. Well, we're defending freedom across the country in the courts and in the courts of public opinion in the legislatures. And ultimately, we're standing for everyone's freedom to live consistent with their convictions, but that they're college students, whether they're in high school, whether they're ministers, whether they're ministries, teachers, parents, we ultimately are working toward a nation where everyone has the freedom to live and to work consistent with their convictions without fear of the government punishment. We want to keep the doors open for the gospel. Well, a lot of people, I think, have this idea that this doesn't concern them that this happens to somebody else. But more and more and more, normal people going about their normal lives, find themselves in the crosshairs of crazy anti liberty forces, which is why we need the alliance defending freedom. Tell me about the case with Lori Smith and Laurie will be on here in a second, but Kelly, tell us about that. Give us an idea of what is the case with Lori Smith. Yes, definitely. Well, you know, by God's grace, we've had 14 Supreme Court wins in the past 11 years and we're hopeful that lorries will be our 15th win. At stake and Laurie's case, Laurie is an artist and from Jennifer Colorado, she's a graphic designer, and she is seeking to create consistent her convictions, but Colorado's telling her how she can't do that. There's censoring her beliefs and trying to force her to design websites for weddings that go against her faith, the very core of who she is. So thankfully the Supreme Court has agreed to hear her case and will decide in that case whether or not Americans can be free to say what they believe, which is something that all of us want. A win for Lori is not just for Laurie. It's a win for everyone. Well, I want to, before we bring Lori on, I want to, I want to just have my audience really understand what we're dealing with here. This is a level of madness that if you don't do something about it, folks, everybody can afford to do something, which is why I keep saying go to metaxas talk dot com, give to ADF. There are not a thousand organizations like ADF. There are a tiny, tiny handful, almost none besides ADF. And ADF is the best at this. They literally have taken 14 cases to the Supreme Court and won. So if they're not doing this, then people get bullied. And you say, well, what kind of people get bullied? Oh, I don't know. What about Lori Smith, a graphic artist who is on the program right now, Lori, welcome. Hi, thank you for having me. This is, I wanted to have you on, I'm excited to have you on because I thought, you know, you're like anybody. You're a graphic designer. This is pretty basic stuff. This is not difficult for people to comprehend. Somebody comes to you and demands that you create something for them, which is not consistent with your values. And you say, well, I can't do that. And they say, well, we're going to make you do that. And where do you go? You either get put out of business or you get sued and legal bills or you go to the alliance defending freedom. So, but tell the case of what happened to you that caused you to turn to the alliance defending freedom. Sure. Well, I've always been a creative person. I've enjoyed creating all my life for many years. I worked in the public and private sector and I ultimately wanted to start my own business, and that's what I did. And the best part of my job is that I get to work with people from all walks of life, including those who identify as LGBT. But what's important to know is that while I work with everyone and that brings me a lot of joy, I can't promote all messages through my business. And so what the government is saying is that they have the right, which they do not, to force me to speak and celebrate and create messages to pour my time and my talent into promoting things that violate my deeply held beliefs. And I believe strongly that all Americans, whether your views on marriage are the same as mine or they're different, we all must live and work freely without the fear of government punishment..
The Eric Metaxas Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"You say, well, what kind of people get bullied? Oh, I don't know. What about Lori Smith, a graphic artist who is on the program right now, Lori, welcome. Hi, thank you for having me. This is, I wanted to have you on, I'm excited to have you on because I thought, you know, you're like anybody. You're a graphic designer. This is pretty basic stuff. This is not difficult for people to comprehend. Somebody comes to you and demands that you create something for them, which is not consistent with your values. And you say, well, I can't do that. And they say, well, we're going to make you do that. And where do you go? You either get put out of business or you get sued and legal bills or you go to the alliance defending freedom. So, but tell the case of what happened to you that caused you to turn to the alliance defending freedom. Sure. Well, I've always been a creative person. I've enjoyed creating all my life for many years. I worked in the public and private sector and I ultimately wanted to start my own business, and that's what I did. And the best part of my job is that I get to work with people from all walks of life, including those who identify as LGBT. But what's important to know is that while I work with everyone and that brings me a lot of joy, I can't promote all messages through my business. And so what the government is saying is that they have the right, which they do not, to force me to speak and celebrate and create messages to pour my time and my talent into promoting things that violate my deeply held beliefs. And I believe strongly that all Americans, whether your views on marriage are the same as mine or they're different, we all must live and work freely without the fear of government punishment.
The Eric Metaxas Show
Lorie Smith Shares Her Story About an Attack on Creative Expression
"You say, well, what kind of people get bullied? Oh, I don't know. What about Lori Smith, a graphic artist who is on the program right now, Lori, welcome. Hi, thank you for having me. This is, I wanted to have you on, I'm excited to have you on because I thought, you know, you're like anybody. You're a graphic designer. This is pretty basic stuff. This is not difficult for people to comprehend. Somebody comes to you and demands that you create something for them, which is not consistent with your values. And you say, well, I can't do that. And they say, well, we're going to make you do that. And where do you go? You either get put out of business or you get sued and legal bills or you go to the alliance defending freedom. So, but tell the case of what happened to you that caused you to turn to the alliance defending freedom. Sure. Well, I've always been a creative person. I've enjoyed creating all my life for many years. I worked in the public and private sector and I ultimately wanted to start my own business, and that's what I did. And the best part of my job is that I get to work with people from all walks of life, including those who identify as LGBT. But what's important to know is that while I work with everyone and that brings me a lot of joy, I can't promote all messages through my business. And so what the government is saying is that they have the right, which they do not, to force me to speak and celebrate and create messages to pour my time and my talent into promoting things that violate my deeply held beliefs. And I believe strongly that all Americans, whether your views on marriage are the same as mine or they're different, we all must live and work freely without the fear of government punishment.
TuneInPOC
"lori smith" Discussed on TuneInPOC
"Okay. November. Welcome back. And a little boy. Going and said, so on a marriage party. Play in Sequoia, okay. In case I get my throat. Hailey, Lori Smith. It's time to Antonio. Oh
The Eric Metaxas Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"It's going to be with James tour. It does not get more electrifying. And James tour. I write about him in my book is atheism dead. One of the top scientists in the world, this is a big deal. Go to Socrates in the city dot com. And hurry up because I really mean it. This is, you know, it's limited and I want anybody who wants to be there to get there because at the end of the day, if there's 5 seats open, we're going to go into the hedgerows and we're going to drag people in because it's a big deal. So go to Socrates and the city dot com, Houston. Alvin, we also should mention we're doing a fundraiser with the alliance defending freedom. I'll tell you more about that in a minute. But for some reason, some people tried to give and they couldn't give. So we really need you to go to the website metaxas talk dot com, click on the banner. These folks are heroes. These are, I don't know how to put it. They are heroes in our time. They're fighting at the Supreme Court, fighting for religious liberty. They're winning. They win their cases because the constitution can still be interpreted by some of these judges that understand that it's the law of the land. But they're fighting for us. And when people come to when the FBI bangs down your door, you know, who are you going to call? No, you're not going to call Ghostbusters. You're going to call 80 F who pro Bono will defend you and your friends. And so they need our help. The alliance defending freedom. I want to be really clear folks. They are heroes and what they do, you know, they're not doing this to make money. They're doing this because they believe in America. In fact, let me read this, I guess today this is October 3rd, okay? Monday. The Supreme Court opens its fall session today, okay? Now, people who are following the Supreme Court, their eyes are trained on the justices deliberations on free speech cases like this is number one, Lori Smith, three O three creative web design company, is being defended by, guess who, the alliance defending freedom against overreach from Colorado's human rights commission, which is trying to force Laurie Smith to promote so called same sex marriage in violation of her deeply held Christian faith folks that is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what your position is on same sex marriage. Forcing someone to go against their religious convictions is as fundamentally unconstitutional and anti American as it gets. And if it weren't for the alliance defending freedom, Lori Smith would be put out of business. She's having to fight, they're doing this for her for free. If you'd like to help in that case and in a number of headline making cases, going before the Supreme Court, in this session, please go to metaxas talk dot com. Click on the banner for the lines of ending freedom. Please make a generous tax deductible donation. Let me just say why is your support so urgently needed if I haven't made that case? Let me say small Christian businesses like the flower shop operated by barren el stutzman. We've talked about her in Washington state. They are under constant attack by progressive activists, okay? This goes on and on and on. They pick whom they want to attack. There are many other folks that could go after, but they specifically pick out folks like Bernal stutzman to attack. We have a clip from baron L stutzman, who lived this. So here's the clip. They're talking about bullying me into doing something that is against my faith. They can't do that. They can get rid of me, but they can't get rid of God. There's not a price on freedom. You can't buy my freedom. And if it's me now, but tomorrow it's going to be you. You got to wake up. There's always reminds me of Martin Emil, or when he said, you know, first they came for the so and so is them, I didn't speak up because I was not a so and so. First, they came together. If you're letting people like barren old stutzman and the woman that I just mentioned, Lori Smith in Colorado. If you're letting them take the heat folks, shame on you, okay? Martin niemoller said, first they came for those and I said nothing. Then they came for those others. I said nothing. And then they came for me. If you don't fight this battle now with whatever money you can with whatever energy if you don't fight it now, you are going to be responsible for the fact that they are going to come after you. And you think you can avoid it. I promise you from the bottom of my heart, either you fight now where you lose later. That's the story. Elizabeth freedom doesn't charge a dime. For their clients like Bernal's Dutchman or Elizabeth because their legal costs are defrayed by generous tax deductible donations from men and women just like you..
ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
"lori smith" Discussed on ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
"Now, Laurie's case is going to be heard before the Supreme Court. We had Laurie on the show a couple of weeks ago. The Supreme Court will hear her case and their new session, and that opens next Monday. And here's what's at stake, the right of every American to say what you believe without fear of government punishment. Lori Smith like all clients obliged defending freedom is not being charged a dime for their legal help. They're fighting all the way to the Supreme Court. It's going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and folks, that's where we can help them out. Your generous gift of a $100 or more is going to help alliance defending freedom protect your God given rights against unconstitutional government overreach, and we see it every day in the headlines and get this folks thanks to a generous friend of ADF your first gift of any amount will be doubled. You give a hundred, it's going to be 200, a thousand, 2000. Again, Tod stars dot com click on the alliance defending freedom banner and give them a help give them a helping hand today. We'll be right back. All right, let's get right to it. 8 four four 747 88 68. How do you folks fired up to parents need to share responsibility with the school teachers for their kids? 8 four four 747 88 68. The mic from Chattanooga. Mike, you officially are like the Ohio State. It's the mic from Chattanooga. I thought the usual love your show in the topics. I think we're missing as usual the entire point. For 45 years or more, I've been promoting the abolition of all government public schools. You can't fix anything unless you agree on definitions. The definition of education is to give proper moral physical and intellectual instruction. Since they took God out of the schools, morals are not being taught. We also must understand the definition of socialism, which is government control over production and distribution. And it always fails. So we have an immoral government system of lower learning that's based on socialism. You can't fix it. The only way and this is the problem with and I'll take a breath in a second. The Republicans and Democrats are socialists and they don't even know it. I was asked many times to help with these issues of public schools. So you can't fix socialism, competition is what works. Giving example in Hamilton county, Tennessee. They steal $500 million a year in property taxes. That money should go to private education institutions. Let's create 50 or a hundred to determine where your child goes to school. So now you have 50 different new schools based on the money they've stolen property taxes because they believe they need to educate the children, they're away. But now it's competitive. And the parents will send their children to those schools that best suit their needs. Maybe it's a transgender stool. I don't care. You want to say, maybe it's a gay school. Maybe it's a Christian, whatever it is, the parents have the choice. You don't have choice here, Todd. And you know, you read the book, I'm sure, Johnny, why Johnny can't read, we know why they're doing this. I was in 7th grade and I detected it. In 9th grade, I made a campaign to abolish these freaks. 'cause that's what they are. And there's a lot of good teachers, but the people on top are freaks. And all you have to do, Mike, is just check out the TikTok. I mean, libs of TikTok, they've got a Twitter feed and every day they're just churning out teacher after teacher who are not only turning their classrooms into these LGBT indoctrination centers, but they're openly defying school rules. So they clearly have an agenda and they are hell bent on shoving that agenda down the throats of the children, and that's where I have a problem. If you read some of the books they have in these schools and the middle school pornography, how they're not in prison, and even what they did over the weekend here, Chattanooga. You know, why isn't the new sheriff arresting them? I love governor desantis. He says, if you pull that, listen, you can't do that, especially when you serve liquor. And I was trying to tell people, this is not about a man dressing as a woman. A man dressing as a man could not do that in an establishment, gyrate, spread his legs, have a little kid touch him, give him dollar bills. It's obscene. It's obscene by the Supreme Court..
The Dan Patrick Show
"lori smith" Discussed on The Dan Patrick Show
"Help me understand the philosophy with these two organizations that levy Smith doesn't and Brian dabel does go for two. Well, first of all, it's an absolute travesty that there are ties. I can't tell you, Dan. You know how many man hours going each week for these games? And when you tie, nobody gets to feel their reward. When you tie both teams feel like they lost. It's not mission accomplished. When you tie a game, it's awful. You know, the day bowl thing is interesting because it ended up working out. But really, if you think about going for two there, right? It's 50 50, whether or not you get it. And then even if you do get it and you're up by one, the Titans are then going to be much more aggressive offensively to make sure they get in Hugo range because they're losing and there's a decent chance you still lose anyway. for the Giants, Bullock missed the kick and it worked out. But they're very fortunate. I mean, saquon Barkley was dead to rights in the backfield. That was an amazing job by him. The lovie Smith won. I'll never understand. And his common after the game was like, well, we didn't really have much of a chance to win anymore. So I didn't want to have a chance to lose. Hey, love, he was fourth down and whatever it was fourth and not even that long. Midfield, I'll tell you this much, Dan. Two first year head coaches. Win or lose the Giants players love the fact that they both went for it. Win or lose, none of them will say it publicly or in this case tie. The Texans players don't know how to love you Smith. They would have wanted to go for it, not a single player would be like, you know, coach, I was thinking about it and it actually was a good tactical decision that you decided to punt it so that we didn't. No, no, no, no. They want to win the game. What does lovey Smith think it's going to happen, Dan? Does Lori Smith think that the Texans are going to be ten, 6 and one, and at that ties, the difference between making the playoffs or not? What's he even doing? Ross Tucker joining us on behalf of DraftKings, I'm watching the Bengals, and I'm watching Joe burrow and I'm trying not to overreact, but Joe burrow played the position as if he didn't know how to play the position. And I know that he was coming off surgery.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"lori smith" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June brusso from Bloomberg radio The Supreme Court has agreed to rejoin a divisive debate accepting an appeal from a Colorado website designer who says she won't create pages for same sex weddings Lori Smith contends that Colorado was violating her First Amendment protections with a law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and other factors A federal appeals court the tenth circuit ruled against her The case could resolve some of the issues the court ducked in 2018 when it considered the Colorado law in a clash over a baker who refused to make cakes for gay weddings Joining me is Steve Sanders a Professor of law at Indiana University What was your first reaction when you learned that the Supreme Court was taking the case of this web designer Well my reaction was that the social conservative legal organization that has brought so many of these cases from any of these religiously based challenges to LGBT rights laws may finally have long last have found a winner The circumstances are sufficiently different from the masterpiece cake shop case of several years ago The facts of this case combined with some changes in the court since the masterpiece cake shop case was decided suggest to me that this one is going to be a tougher case and will be a case where the plaintiff here the person challenging the law is more likely to prevail Let's go back to the masterpiece cake shop case for a moment So the court there ruled in favor of the Colorado baker who didn't want to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples but the court did it on very narrow grounds just explain what happened there Yeah That's right That was a 2018 decision So you had a baker in color also Colorado both of these cases are coming from the same state oddly enough But the baker in Colorado who said I am perfectly happy to serve gay people I just won't provide a cake for a same sex wedding And there was never any issue of a message on the cake or writing on the cake even just a generically decorated wedding cake He said I can't provide that for a same sex wedding because essentially I speak through my cakes My cakes are my artistry And the First Amendment prevents the state of Colorado from essentially commandeering my artistry and forcing me to in effect endorse a wedding by providing a cake that I can't in good conscience endorse And people criticize that reasoning and said look a cake is a commercial product Nobody goes to a wedding and thinks the baker has blessed this wedding when they look at the cake But the court sort of ended up dodging that First Amendment speech argument by ruling a narrower ground Essentially it picked out some difficult and sort of sarcastic comments that had been made by the authorities in Colorado who had initially adjudicated that case It was a state civil rights commission And basically the court said that civil rights commission had shown hostility toward the baker's religion So in essence it was a way of saying he didn't get a fair hearing His religion was treated with a sort of contempt by state officials And that's enough to say he prevails on his claim that his free exercise religion was violated But the court in doing that ducked or avoided having to decide the much more novel First Amendment theory that the baker and his lawyers had put forward And explain in more depth what they sidestepped Steve So the baker had invoked both the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech two different parts of the First Amendment The problem for religious challengers to civil rights laws is that the doctrine of the free exercise clause is relatively weak when it comes to challenging laws that are just general laws that apply to everybody like civil rights laws There is no evidence that the baker's religion had been singled out or targeted for disadvantageous treatment So the free exercise clause does not provide a very powerful weapon for attacking civil rights laws That's why organizations like the legal group that represented both Jack Phillips the baker and now the web designer in the new case have really gone to the part of the First Amendment that deals with speech and particularly a line of cases called the compelled speech doctrine which basically stands for the principle that government can't force you to express a message that you don't seek to express that it would violate your conscience or just your political beliefs or your preferences to express and the innovation here is that they've made the argument that the provider of a commercial product like a wedding cake or in this case a web designer that their speech their creativity their expression is being compelled commandeered by the government when they have to provide a service to a same sex wedding because they don't want to do that because it violates their religion But their claim is more about speech than about religion In fact in the case that the Supreme Court has now decided to hear they have basically said we're not interested in the free exercise clause arguments We're not opening up that can of worms We're just interested in the First Amendment speech arguments that you.
WTOP
"lori smith" Discussed on WTOP
"The newest developments tonight in the crisis in Ukraine President Biden announced he's imposing tough economic sanctions on Russia The move comes a day after Vladimir Putin announced he was moving what he called peacekeeping troops into two separate as regions in the Ukraine Secretary of State Tony blinken is also announced he's canceled a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov planned for this week in Geneva That's off Today's White House press briefing included new secretary Jen Psaki being asked about the prospect of a meeting between President Biden and Putin Diplomacy can't succeed unless Russia changes course And as he said it wouldn't be appropriate for him to have a meeting with his counterpart at this point in time foreign minister Lavrov and it was always intended that any engagement with president Putin would follow that So at this point that is certainly not in the plans Blinken said he'd called off a meeting because Russia's actions indicated Moscow was not serious about a diplomatic path to resolving the crisis in Ukraine WTO national security correspondent JJ green explains what blinken's move signals in the efforts to resolve this crisis It's the end of the diplomatic road really I mean they're saying essentially what a lot of people suspected was coming And that is the realization that Russia was never really serious about dealing diplomatically with the U.S. or the west And so now this is the official recognition that it's essentially done There may be some breakthroughs And of course the door isn't closed but that's what this was today and we should just call it what it was It was the end of the diplomatic effort to get Russia to leave Ukraine alone WTO national security correspondent JJ green The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a Colorado web designer who says her religious beliefs prevent her from offering wedding website designs to gay couples Lori Smith also wants to post a statement on her website about her Christian beliefs counter to a Colorado anti discrimination law Smith argues the law violates her free speech and religious rights the Supreme Court tonight says it would look only at the free speech issue Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes joined WTO earlier tonight The court has been particularly protective of religious beliefs and religious rights It's taken another case this term that involves a high school football coach who wants to be able to pray in the middle of the field after a game And so you know the Colorado had told the Supreme Court there was no reason to take this case And the court took it anyway So I think that those on the religious side are pretty happy about the court's move today Colorado attorney general Phil weiser says his state's laws prevent discrimination and uphold free speech The case is expected to be argued in the fall President Biden is narrowing down his choices in west wing staffers say the announcement of his first Supreme Court nominee appears imminent The Washington Post reports the president has completed interviews with at least two of the leading contenders.
Dennis Prager Podcasts
"lori smith" Discussed on Dennis Prager Podcasts
"We have a big issue in this country. With regard to liberty, as you well know, freedom, and that's why I have the senior counsel for the alliance defending freedom, ADF, Jake Warner on the line. For the latest case that they are involved in, in defending freedom in this country, Jake Warner welcome to the tennis prager show. Thanks for having me. Where are you located? I'm in Scottsdale Arizona. Oh yeah, that's where ADF is correct. Yeah, we have offices around the country, but one of them is here in Scottsdale. One of them, oh, not the headquarters, I for whatever reason, I thought the headquarters. And anyway, in any event, it's fine. Good to be with you. There is a case in other case in Colorado and it raises an interesting question. Our Colorado courts, particularly goofy or is it just a coincidence? Well, a few months ago, the tenth circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Colorado officials could force a website designer to create custom website celebrating your viewers that goes against her biblical beliefs. Lori Smith is a website designer and she wants to create website celebrating the biblical view of marriage that is between one man and one woman. But if she does so, Colorado would punish her if she declined to create website celebrating a different view of marriage. And so unlike she looked around, she saw what the state was doing to Jack Phillips and she didn't want to be punished before she found out her constitutional rights. If she sued, and three months ago, the tenth circuit Court of Appeals said she could be punished for exercising her First Amendment right now to express a message that goes against her core beliefs. I'm quiet because I'm actually assimilating what you're saying. So according to the courts in Colorado, a person has to actively celebrate, for example, same sex marriage if they believe, even if they believe that religion demands that marriage be between a man and a woman. Do I have that correctly? That's what the ten circuit recently held that if Laurie Smith creates custom websites celebrating biblical marriage, the state would force her to also create custom websites celebrating differences, including same sex marriage. And what is their argument that the religious argument is invalid? What is their argument? Well, they would say that Laurie is discriminating, but the reality is, is that lower he serves everyone. She just can't express every message. And the First Amendment protects those kinds of expressive choices and courts around the country have recognized this principle, for example, ADF has represented filmmakers in Minnesota and a painter and calligrapher in Arizona. And when those cases went on appeal that the courts recognized that the First Amendment forbids government officials from forcing people to express messages that go against their core beliefs. And this is something that is important for every American. And we don't think the government should force, for example, people who identify as LGBT to create expression that goes against their views. It's just not the government's role to force people to create speech that go against their faith or other deeply held beliefs. So where does this case stand now? We've asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on this critical issue. And right now that is being litigated right now, we hope to hear from the court later this fall perhaps early next year to see whether it's going to take the case. Now I read in your article on it at the ABF site that there is a gag order did I read that correctly? There's a publication ban featured in Colorado's wall. So as a feature of Colorado law, Lori can't publish on her website, her views about marriage because the state would think that could make some people feel unwelcome. To her services. So we've also challenged this aspect of the law that restricts where we speak. Well, that one troubles me even more if that's possible. Since when does a court have the right to say to an American you can't speak? Yes, it's a very disturbing feature of the law. No loss should punish them when for expressing their views, especially on life's most critical issues like marriage and gender and other things like that. But that's exactly what this law does simply because worry is a business owner in Colorado. And just because Lori is a business owner, doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't protect her right to free speech. Yeah, you would think so. All right, folks during the break right now, please go to my website and click on the banner for ABF, all of their work is done free, so we are the ones who raise the funds for them. The ADF lines the fending freedom.
Dennis Prager Podcasts
Lorie Loves All Things Creative but Colorado Wants to Censor Her
"There is a case in other case in Colorado and it raises an interesting question. Our Colorado courts, particularly goofy or is it just a coincidence? Well, a few months ago, the tenth circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Colorado officials could force a website designer to create custom website celebrating your viewers that goes against her biblical beliefs. Lori Smith is a website designer and she wants to create website celebrating the biblical view of marriage that is between one man and one woman. But if she does so, Colorado would punish her if she declined to create website celebrating a different view of marriage. And so unlike she looked around, she saw what the state was doing to Jack Phillips and she didn't want to be punished before she found out her constitutional rights. If she sued, and three months ago, the tenth circuit Court of Appeals said she could be punished for exercising her First Amendment right now to express a message that goes against her core beliefs. I'm quiet because I'm actually assimilating what you're saying. So according to the courts in Colorado, a person has to actively celebrate, for example, same sex marriage if they believe, even if they believe that religion demands that marriage be between a man and a woman. Do I have that correctly? That's what the ten circuit recently held that if Laurie Smith creates custom websites celebrating biblical marriage, the state would force her to also create custom websites celebrating differences, including same sex marriage.