Remember the gay cake?
Now SCOTUS is planning to rule if free speech protects a Christian website designer's "right to refuse to work with same-sex couples planning to marry."
"The justices heard arguments in a Colorado case that posed a conflict between the 1st Amendment rights of a business owner and a state antidiscrimination law that gives customers a right to equal service without regard to their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."
Whatever the result, it just shows you can't run the law successfully using a system of rights. Anyone can claim a right about anything. Inevitably claims of rights conflict. And your SCOTUS will end up consuming its precious time arguing over piffle.
This is a case about a website designer being an arsehole and a couple who are so determined not to let him get away with being an arsehole that they are being wankers in return. And so they are pursuing the case in law when they might have just looked for a nicer service provider and written a website review laying out the issue. So now SCOTUS, clad in their highfalutin robes and making grand claims about principle, has taken the case in order to decide between an arsehole and two wankers.
The wrapping of silly cases in shiny abstract wrapping paper called amendments to the constitution can't make the discussion of them serious. The flaw is in the design of the system. Cases like this should never be adjudicated in court. At best, this is a political argument between self-righteous theological conservatives and self-righteous woke liberals. Neither has an appealing argument. Both found their moral ideas in nonsense and are arguing about a service that will never occur, whoever "wins".
| 