The Narrow Victory

There is an obvious flaw, however, with one of the asserted justifications for Colorado’s law. According to the individual respondents, Colorado can compel Phillips’ speech to prevent him from ‘denigrating the dignity’ of same-sex couples, ‘asserting their inferiority,’ and subjecting them to ‘humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment.’ These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence. States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. A contrary rule would allow the government to stamp out virtually any speech at will.

“In ‘Obergefell,’ I warned that the Court’s decision would inevitably come into conflict with religious liberty, as individuals are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. This case proves that the conflict has already emerged. Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing ‘Obergefell’ from being used to stamp out every vestige of dissent and vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.”

{Clarence Thomas}

Thomas doesn’t go far enough, of course.  What the law should protect is the right of private property owners to do with their property what they want.  That means refusing access to their property at any time, for any reason.

Further, no man has a right to another man’s labor, so an individual may refuse service to anyone, for any reason.  The law no longer protects a man’s labor in this way, and you may even be incarcerated for refusing to serve someone.

So much for trusting the wisdom of the market.

Anyway, more on the decision here.

Contra the Social and Economic Justice Warriors

A significant number of modern Catholics are consumed with revolutionary ideas about social ‘justice’, and while a smaller but equally dangerous group are obsessed with economic ‘justice’, both have adopted what is essentially humanistic materialism.

Here is an authentic Catholic approach to life:

“I met a Catholic once who was the most different person I ever saw. That’s really what keeps me searching among his co-religionists. Met him on a bus going out to Chicago and he gave me his address but I lost it. Worst mistake I ever made.

This Catholic was married and about thirty. We got talking about economic security and birth control. His theory was that God is not bound by a rotten economic system and that if you did what was right and just you’d turn up with enough meals a day to keep going, and anything else that was really necessary. He kept quoting “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these things will be added unto you.” He claimed it really meant something and that he’d tested it out.

For instance, he had five kids and his economic position had all along been what you might call precarious. This was just after the depression, and he and his family had been through it without missing a meal and with a few extras at Christmas time.

His jobs hadn’t been ideal, but not bad either. He had quit twice in protest against injustices to other people; so you couldn’t say he had compromised his principles. He considered the matter of having children as they came sort of a test of faith, and he laid it down as a general rule that God will supply extra food for every extra child.”

Carol Jackson (1947)