Is anyone else not surprised? The United States Supreme Court – stacked with six purportedly conservative appointees – recently refused to hear the case of Baronnelle Stutzman, a Washington, D.C. florist who in turn refused to make a make a flower arrangement with a pro-homosexual-wedding message. This seems a classic free-speech issue that needs desperately to be decided, hopefully in a rational direction – that no one should be forced to print/say/shout/declare anything they deem to be untrue and fundamentally against their basic principles – freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak, and not to state what one believes to be false.
Were the justices fearful to take a case so against the modern zeitgeist of bending the knee to the LGBTQ agenda? Do they have a broader agenda, and are they biding their time? Or is it that the justices are trying to move government and legislation back to where it belongs, with the people and their representatives? After all, as Mark Steyn put it, a republic governed by justices is a contradiction in terms. Whatever the case, the practical reality is that the Supreme Court left the Christian florist flailing in the wind, and the rest of us with her, for we are all at the mercy of capricious judges, interpreting, applying and even making things up as they see fit. We should recall that law either supports the natural moral law – including freedom of speech and expression – or it is a type of coercive violence, as Saint Thomas pithily puts it. We need a good dose of reason, order and balance restored here.
Joe Biden is sending out government agents door-to-door in America, to ask people whether they have been vaccinated, and, if not, why. Their justification is the ‘delta variant’ of Covid, to be followed by the ‘lambda’ – and there are twenty-or-so more Greek letters from which to choose, none of them so far lethal to the vast majority of the population. I still wonder what’s so wrong with good old natural immunity. As might be expected, Joe’s coercive policy is causing a backlash, with legislators – see above – proposing to brand such nosy-parkers ‘trespassers’, to be dealt with accordingly. One wonders how far either side will go.