The State Government of Colorado Wants to End the First Amendment

The State Government of Colorado Wants to End the First Amendment

Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 12/5/2022

The Supreme Court of the United States will, by the end of 2022, have held oral arguments for 38 days, barring any new ‘pandemic’ or other ‘emergency event. December 5 – 7 is the last of the days for oral arguments in 2022. Today there is a case being argued between Lorie Smith of Colorado, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom’s Kristen Waggoner and the Solicitor General of Colorado Eric Olson and the DoJ Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher. The Court will be hearing arguments, again, about Colorado’s obviously unconstitutional attempts to eradicate the First Amendment in regards to speech and the exercise of religion.

As a refresher, the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The offending Colorado statute reads at Title 24 §24-34-601(2)(a) “It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”

Now, the Colorado law leaves open discrimination based on religious beliefs because it is not included in the language of the law. However, it does allow the law to be applied to business owners with deeply held religious beliefs, despite language in (1) reading, ““Place of public accommodation” shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.” Smith, desiring to create a website for weddings but not wishing to violate her faith by being forced to create displays for same-sex marriages went to court so that she will not be put out of business if she refuses service to a same-sex couple.

In 2018 the Supreme Court decided to side step the issue being raised by Smith. Instead of deciding Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission based on the arguments, they decided that Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner, Jack Phillips, was treated unfairly by the Commission. The LA Times reported at the time (June 2018), “By a 7-2 vote, the court said Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker, was treated with hostility and bias by a state commission that concluded his actions violated a state anti-discrimination law. One commission member had commented that religion was used throughout history to justify slavery, the Holocaust and “all kinds of discrimination.””

The LA Times – a big proponent of a Communist United States and using LGBTQIA+ issues to help them achieve their goal – also wrote that all parties had reason to celebrate because of the 2018 ruling. Freedom of speech advocates noted that deeply held religious beliefs are something which must be respected by the government. LGBTQ advocates (the Communists in literally all situations) could also find something to celebrate in the ruling such as their view that they are and deserve to be a protected class.

Because the Court refused to tackle the actual matter at hand in 2018 by striking down the rouge Colorado law, free speech in the United States could be ended, again. Colorado will just not quit trying to use their anti-discrimination legislation to target people of faith. So, let’s review the term discrimination. Black’s Law defines discrimination as “In constitutional law, the effect of a statute which confers particular privileges on a class arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons, all of whom stand in the same relation to the privileges granted and between whom and those not favored no reasonable distinction can be found”; and, “In general, a failure to treat all equally.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines discrimination as, “The act of discriminating. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. Treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice [emphasis mine].”

Hopefully the more responsible Justice on the Court like Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, Roberts and Barrett can just say what the 2018 Court didn’t – the Colorado law is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed. I write this expecting at least one of these six Justices to decide that woke desires outweigh the US Constitution. When the Court’s opinion is released, we will all learn if religion is to be preserved or if the First Amendment can be voided in the name of homosexuality.

This is an example of the power of language. The legal definitions of discrimination seem, on their face, to be reasonable. In my 1966 copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary discrimination is defined as “1. The act of making or perceiving differences and distinctions. 2. the ability to do this. 3 a showing in favoritism or treatment.” It wasn’t about race, or gender, or disability – it was about treating someone differently. It wasn’t about arbitrariness. It was about any treatment which differed between any two people. If Johnny brought home a 12 point buck and Timmy brought home a 12 point buck but Timmy is 13 years old and a great deal of attention is given to the boy because Johnny, his 41 year old father – that’s still discrimination. The older definitions captures the facts of life.

One of those facts is that humans discriminate in order to survive. Say one decides to dine at Olive Garden instead of McDonald’s. Maybe McDonald’s should be able to sue the Olive Garden diners for discrimination. When this example of discrimination is taken to the logical extreme it would create one restaurant in effect. If McDonald’s ever won a discrimination suit such as this, all restaurants will sue all other restaurants. Eventually the $45.18 tab dropped off at the table will not go to the owner’s of the restaurant one dined at – it will go into a collective fund to be distributed to all restaurants. To make the example sillier (but still salient) imagine getting sued by Olive Garden and McDonald’s because one dined-in. Maybe the grocery stores could get in on it. Walmart and Target could become a lawsuit-created oligopoly ruled by the managers of the discrimination lawsuit fund forcing them to, for all intents and purposes, share their revenue streams with one another.

Without free speech, of course, individuals will be unable to speak to one another openly. I disagree with a lot of speech that I hear. They still have the right to speak it. And I have the right to my speech to combat their speech. Without that protection what would this country be? I wouldn’t even be able to suggest we close the borders for five years and work out an immigration plan to benefit US citizens. It would be deemed hate speech and I would be liable for prosecution. Yet, here the US is, contracting Twitter and Facebook to effect exactly that outcome. Here the State of Colorado is trying to codify it into law.

The idea that religious beliefs are subject to what amounts to a speech regulator in the State of Colorado is absolutely intolerable. It’s actually downright evil. Like British authorities deciding that uttering God’s Word regarding homosexuality as a hate crime, the Supreme Court faces the same decision. Is it a hate crime to refuse homosexual abominations services related to their state-approved marriage? It is a direct assault on the Bible in favor of LGBTQ people (which is discrimination in it’s own right).

That is exactly what Colorado is trying to do. They are trying to stuff a gay agenda down the throats of US citizens while destroying their speech and religious rights. Their real goal is to destroy discernment. Progressives, the despicable people they are, tacked on all kinds of protected classes to the modern definition of discrimination, codified those definitions in law, and are very close to realizing their goal of criminalizing speech they do not like. Once speech is criminalized, then the government will be doing our discernment for us. They will tell us what is right and what is wrong in more and more realms of our lives including religious belief, morality, ethics, sexuality, and more – all based on their goals for us, not our own.

In Dueteronomy 32 God grows angry at the sins Israel is committing. It reads in verses 28-32:

28 “‘They are a nation without common sense,
utterly lacking in discernment.
29 If they were wise they could figure it out
and understand their destiny.
30 After all, how can one chase a thousand
and two put ten thousand to rout,
unless their Rock sells them to their enemies,
unless Adonai hands them over?
31 For our enemies have no rock like our Rock —
even they can see that!

32 “‘Rather, their vine is from the vine of S’dom,
from the fields of ‘Amora —
their grapes are poisonous,
their clusters are bitter;
33 their wine is snake poison,
the cruel venom of vipers.

That’s us, right now. The whole world, especially the so-called enlightened Western nations, is just like the Israeli in Dueteronomy which angered God so mightily. Judgment has come for some of us, for others it draws very near. I pray the Supreme Court makes the right call to preserve the First Amendment but recognize that we really do not deserve it because there are far too many who have rejected the Living God. We need to get them to acknowledge that God is real and that ONLY God is good. We all need to repent. And we all need to read our Bible’s and pray.

Bless God and God bless.