MAGA is fighting back against the mob and so are we… but we need your help. Join our growing army and click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or give the gift of Revolver—simply select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. If you want to give extra during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation — whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes towards the battle to save our great nation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been stirring the pot quite a bit recently, causing considerable uproar among the left. On Thursday, they essentially axed affirmative action, and now, they’ve decreed that bakeries and other U.S. companies and workers do not have to bow down to the demands of the LGBTQ+ community when it conflicts with their religious beliefs. In other words, no, you don’t have to bake their damn cake. Many know the story of Colorado Christian baker Jack Philips, who has faced harassment and abuse from radical extremists within the LGBTQ+ community. For years, these ruthless scumbags have tried to force this good, Christian man to abandon his beliefs in order to bake cakes for their twisted lifestyles.

Sean Davis took to Twitter to explain the ruling in a nutshell:

Here’s a closeup of the documents:

Image

Image

The Washington Examiner:

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that it was within Smith’s First Amendment rights to not want to make wedding announcement websites for same-sex couples.

“From day one all I wanted is to speak consistent with my beliefs. And I want that for everyone. I want that for the LGBT website designer, the Democrat speechwriter, the Jewish calligrapher, the pro-life photographer,” Smith told MSNBC. “Everyone should be free to speak consistent with who they are and what they believe.”

[…]

In the 6-3 majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing the website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”

We can’t say for certain how this will influence past rulings against Mr. Philips, or recoup the funds he’s spent in his defense, let alone address the stress he’s dealt with. But one thing’s for sure — his legal team is likely convening to discuss these matters as we speak.

LGBTQ is already panicking.

The Advocate:

While the ruling is limited in scope, it sets a dangerous precedent because it sets the stage for other exceptions from antidiscrimination law, LGBTQ+ advocates are pointing out, and it comes at a time when legislatures in conservative states are attacking the community. The fight against discrimination must continue at both the state and national levels, both legislatively and in the courts, they note.

“Today’s smug attack on civil rights law will have limited practical impact in the marketplace because few commercial services involve original artwork and pure speech offered as limited commissions,” said a statement from Lambda Legal Chief Legal Officer Jennifer C. Pizer. “But today’s narrow decision does continue the Court majority’s dangerous siren call to those trying to return the country to the social and legal norms of the nineteenth century because it jettisons without even acknowledging what was part of the legal test for decades.”

“Given the uniquely creative service at issue here, the impact is likely to be minimal,” Pizer added. “But the door has been opened for potential future cases to expand this limited carve-out. We will be vigilant against that possibility.”

Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund Legal Director David Brown issued a statement making similar points: “Today’s disturbing ruling creates a new license to discriminate, allowing some businesses to use their disapproval of LGBTQ people to justify refusing to sell us services. However, it is important to note the limits of the decision as well. This license to discriminate only applies to those who sell their original and tailored, expressive service while carefully vetting each project for alignment with their own views.”

While the ruling is limited in scope, it sets a dangerous precedent because it sets the stage for other exceptions from antidiscrimination law, LGBTQ+ advocates are pointing out, and it comes at a time when legislatures in conservative states are attacking the community. The fight against discrimination must continue at both the state and national levels, both legislatively and in the courts, they note.

“Today’s smug attack on civil rights law will have limited practical impact in the marketplace because few commercial services involve original artwork and pure speech offered as limited commissions,” said a statement from Lambda Legal Chief Legal Officer Jennifer C. Pizer. “But today’s narrow decision does continue the Court majority’s dangerous siren call to those trying to return the country to the social and legal norms of the nineteenth century because it jettisons without even acknowledging what was part of the legal test for decades.”

There’s also speculation now about whether this ruling will stir the pot in the vaccine debate. Will it set a benchmark for American workers objecting to vaccination on religious grounds? If that’s the case, it might mean both the government and Big Pharma are about to take a significant hit in terms of profits and influence, which is great news for everyone.

SUPPORT REVOLVER — DONATE — SUBSCRIBE — NEWSFEED — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — TWITTER