By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 5 – The US Supreme Court held oral argument in 303 Creative v. Elenis, No. 21-476, on December 5. Inner City Press tweeted it, here:
Justice Elena Kagan says if website designer can pick and choose, why not the stationary provider for invitations?
Justice Kavanaugh asks, Are website designers really artists, with First Amendment protections against compelled speech?
Counsel: I won't come back with the caterer. But I might with a custom-designed wedding cake.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asks if a musician who wrote a song like "Wind Beneath My Wings" refuse to license it to some types of weddings?
Counsel: No... But they could refuses to perform it live there.
Justice Jackson has a hypo, about a grandmother's "Protestant Provisions."
Counsel: The caterer is not engaging in speech.
Justice Jackson: Action can be speech, no? Why can't Grandma Helen to this? Counsel: It's status discrimination. There's no message Judge Thomas asks counsel for Colorado to address the impact on speech, says that running a railroad or a riverboat business does not implicate speech.
Laughter in the court - questioning ranges into J-Date and... Ashley Madison. Now, Black Santa.
Next question: Could Colorado law force a freelance press release writer to write one for... Scientology? Colorado's lawyer quickly insists, No. Colorado allows the speech writer to say he or she only writes about traditions they are familiar with
Justice Amy Coney Barrett: What if a pro gay rights marriage site said, no straight marriages promoted here, could they do it? Colorado's lawyer calls it an "unusual hypothetical."
Justice Sotomayor: These webpages only say the date and place of the wedding, and sometimes not even that: "It says Counting down the days, doesn't even say to what. I don't see anywhere, "I'm celebrating your marriage" or "God loves this."
Justice Kavanaugh says if Colorado prevails in this case, speech writers could be deemed to be public accommodations.
Justice Jackson: What she is asking for in this case is to say the same thing, but not for gay people - she does not want to implicitly endorse
Ms. Smith's lawyer: Colorado law wants to make a soccer mom a public accommodation... For some reasons, under this law, political speech is protected but religious speech is not. Cultural winds may shift, but compelled speech doctrine should not.
Chief Justice Roberts: Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted.
Inner City Press will continue to cover the case(s)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
