This Anti-Homo Court Ruling is Totally Worthless – Does Not Address the Actual Issue at Hand

This case was done on the stupid internet version of the cake baking controversy.

I wish the case was about a cake, instead of website design.

Faggots have been destroying Christians’ lives out of pure malice and hatred with this forced cake-baking demand, and I think the Supreme Court should have done a cake case.


The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday that certain businesses can refuse to serve LGBTQ customers could have broad implications for the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, experts and advocates say.

The court said in a 6-3 ruling Friday that a Colorado web designer could decline to make a website for a same-sex wedding.

Colorado law prohibits any business from turning away customers because of their sexual orientation. The web designer, Lorie Smith, objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds and argued that forcing her to make a site for a same-sex wedding would violate her First Amendment rights. The court agreed.

Amanda Martin, supervising attorney at Duke University’s First Amendment Clinic, told Axios that the ruling “significantly undermines the efforts of Colorado or any other governmental institution that is trying to address civil rights issues.”

“The case is significant because the court held for the first time today that a business had a constitutional right to discriminate,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the ACLU.

I just want to note that I am the most censored man ever in all of history (facts), and this dumb bitch Amanda never called me up – despite the fact that she runs a “First Amendment Clinic,” whatever the shit that means.

I don’t even know who this cunt is.

Outside of my immediate circles, the only public personalities who defended me were Sargon of Akkad, Glenn Greenwald, and Tucker Carlson.

The court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, drew a distinction between turning away customers and making specific products.

Smith wouldn’t be able to turn down, say, a website for a business just because the owner of that business was gay, the court said, but requiring her to make a site that conveys a message she disagrees with is a violation of the First Amendment.

There these scumbags are – doing an ostensibly right-wing ruling, and then reinforcing the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.

“You don’t actually have freedom of association guaranteed in the Constitution – it’s just about performative religion” is a stupid, dumb argument, and bypasses the actual issue, which is forcing people to do business with people they don’t want to do business with.

This is the Court once again propping up the system, which would completely collapse without this stupid, fake law.

It’s not clear which good or services will qualify as expressive speech and which won’t, Linda McClain, the Robert Kent Professor of Law at Boston University, told Axios.

“The court doesn’t seem to put any limiting principles on this artistic expression, creative expression, protection,” McClain said, noting that the ruling is not limited to same-sex marriage or religious convictions.

“I’m deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans,” President Biden said in a statement.

“Today’s decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations – including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women,” Biden added.

I’ve got several things here.

“Freedom of Religion” is Not a Central Platform of Society

Sometimes I wish the Constitution didn’t say “freedom of religion.” That is really assumed by everything else in the document, and doesn’t need to be explicitly stated. This is the loophole that the Jews used to kike us with their Jewish attacks, to ban prayer in school and push Talmudic-atheist gibberish about fish transforming into monkeys on children, and it has become the easy way out for conservative dweebs who don’t want to say “I shouldn’t ever have to do business with anyone I don’t want to do business with.”

This line in the First Amendment is an implicit reference to the Protestant-Catholic split in the English Civil War, and maybe even more to the situation at the time with the Catholic Church in France. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is actually explicit.

These courts and the Republican media have made this like a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Classifying freedoms as religious in nature and therefore special is simply retarded. It makes zero sense. They did this same thing with the vaccine, where people could apply for “religious exemption.”

Of course, Jews will always find a way to kike you, so they would have used other arguments to undermine society if we didn’t have “religion” stated explicitly.

The “Born This Way” Argument of Anal

The whole thing of “I suck other men’s cocks and do fisting at the nightly gang-bang, and therefore I am like a black person” is also retarded, even if you believe in the Civil Rights Act. This assumes the “born gay” theory, which has not been proven and is dumb and stupid.

Voluntary behavior is not an immutable characteristic. Therefore, right off the bat, you’re accepting the Civil Rights Act at face value, agreeing that “God made them queers.”

“Basic Human Autonomy”

If it was this “religious exemption” thing instead of “basic human autonomy” (which is actually what is being debated here), then I wish the case was about a Mormon discriminating against a black person. Joseph Smith said that black people had the souls of demons or something. I forget the details. You can watch this cartoon and really get redpilled on Mormons:

Their religion says they’re supposed to treat blacks completely differently than whites. (I think they’ve fully cucked on all that stuff now, but Brigham Young went hard, and you could easily say you follow those old texts – that’s what the bigamists say they’re doing when they get caught with a shed full of 14-year-old wives. They get the girls pregnant and have daughters and then trade them back and forth. It’s literally – “get 14-year-old wife – produce 14-year-old daughter – trade for another 14-year-old wife.” (By the way – they can’t use “but my religion” for polygamy, let alone their arranged marriage system.)

What is the difference between blacks and gays? Oh, I thought there was no difference – they’re both born that way.

Also: what if your religion says you’re not supposed to be around gays, like in Christianity? What if it says you’re not supposed to be around blacks, like in Mormonism? What is this magical “specific performance of religion” limited by? Why would you not be forced to bake an anal cake, and somehow still be forced to do business with homos?

This is not real jurisprudence, it is just throwing a bone to the conservatives.

Moreover, you should be able to discriminate against black people, with or without a religious reason. You should be able to discriminate against anyone. It’s your life. You should not have the government dictating this sort of thing. It is completely out of control, that the US government claims these powers over you that no other government in the world claims (save for some US-controlled vassal states in Europe, and even they are not this extreme).

These people go on and on about the “freedom” of “democracy,” but no “dictator” is going to tell you you’re not allowed to judge people you hire. It is a fundamental and very basic natural right to decide who you do business with based on whatever qualifications you personally come up with.

They will of course flip that and claim that blacks and sodomites get the freedom to do business with whoever they want, and the freedom to force people to do business with them, but this is utterly nonsensical.

Redistribution of Human Autonomy

Yes, you can give one group more “freedom” by giving them legal powers to force other people to do things. However, at that point, you’ve defined society as a whole as a zero sum game where the state has the ability to seize and redistribute personal autonomy. It is so much easier to base law on “natural rights,” which was the foundation of the US Constitution. Instead, they are falsely claiming “this is what the Constitution says” and then using that natural rights document as a kind of voodoo fetish or totem to make various declarations.

These people Trump put on the court – who, by the way, were recommended by the Federalist Society – claimed to be “originalists,” but if you just consider that for a few seconds: the Founding Fathers owned slaves. So, obviously they didn’t believe you should be forced to do business with black people.

Actual “originalism” – which is a stupid word, by the way, and this concept should be called “puritanism” – would allow consideration of the body of writing that all the Founding Fathers left for us. They all wrote letters, many of them wrote books, and we literally know exactly why they wrote what they wrote. There is not a need to interpret it in most of these situations.

Even if you grant that when blacks became citizens (smooth move, Lincoln) they gained the same rights as whites, you still do not have a justification for denying free association. Is there any reason to believe that the Constitution argues, or that any of the Founding Fathers believed, that the government should be allowed to micromanage your life and make personal decisions about who you do business with? Or does everything indicate that they didn’t explicitly state this because they couldn’t possibly have imagined it would get this bad?

The real “originalist” position would be that the entire underlying philosophical and moral framework of the Constitution stands in direct conflict with the premise of the Civil Rights Act. When asked where the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, you could literally say “the entire document is based on that premise.”

The basic fact is that the “living document” people are more honest and authentic, saying that the law should constantly change to enforce societal norms. Conservative judges believe the same thing, they just don’t admit it.

Pure Gibberish

Imagine that the 14th Amendment was used to justify the murder of millions of babies, but somehow doesn’t protect your right to choose who you do business with.

This proves the whole thing is a farce, including this recent ass cake ruling. The court system of the United States is de facto rabbinical at this point, as the intended meanings of the laws do not mean anything in and of themselves, and it is all about interpretation.

This is all out of the Talmud. This is what you have throughout the Jew religion: they have these debates between scholars about how to change the meaning of things. The first job was to completely invert the 10 Commandments, and turn them into the opposite thing, or some other weird thing. Then they started subverting each other’s writings, and making new meanings of the things other rabbis said. It’s totally pathological. You can go look at it. It’s the basis for the entire legal system.

The actual goal of the Supreme Court system, as it exists today, is not to interpret the Constitution, but to give blessings to each side of the ongoing civil conflict in America. That is how these people view themselves –  keeping the balance of the Force. They might as well cosplay as the Jedi Council.

These are supposed to be conservative judges, so they deliver a ruling that says you don’t have to bake an ass cake. Oh, but you still are forced to hire “people” (queers) who go to fisting parties and eat poop because your religion is personal and there’s only a specific place it matters and that is when it is a particular action.

It’s gibberish.

Some Mormon needs to put up a sign in their store that says “Niggers Not Welcome” and wait for some Jew to come along with a lawsuit.