Is Al Franken trying to dunk on the Supreme Court’s gay marriage website decision? – Twitchy

We told you on Friday about the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In it, the Supreme Court held that a webpage designer wasn’t obligated to create websites that she disagreed with. Jonathan Turley provided a link to the case:

The case involved a woman named Lorie Smith who owned a website development business called 303 Creative. She wanted to expand her business to include wedding websites but the state of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law purported to require her to create gay wedding websites, if she made wedding websites at all. Both sides—Smith and the state of Colorado—stipulated that (quoting from the opinion): 

  • Ms. Smith is ‘willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,’ and she ‘will gladly create custom graphics and websites’ for clients of any sexual orientation.
  • She will not produce content that ‘contradicts biblical truth’ regardless of who orders it. 
  • Those wedding websites [she will make for customers] will be ‘customized and tailored’ through close collaboration with individual couples, and they will ‘express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting’ her view of marriage.
  • Viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites ‘will know that the websites are [Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s] original artwork.’

On those facts, one wonders how Mrs. Smith didn’t win unanimously, or how she lost in every court before the Supreme Court. Contrary to what you might have heard in the media, you can see that even her opponents agreed that she would serve every customer but not every message. By those stipulations, if a gay man came to her seeking to create a website that revered Jesus and said nothing about marriage, Colorado conceded that she would do it.


And we want to make one point that a few commentators have missed in good faith. While Ms. Smith was motivated by her faith, this was not based on the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Instead, this was based on the amendment’s right of free speech in general. The right to speak—or, in this case, not to speak—applies equally to all viewpoints, including religious ones. This means that if you are black web designer and someone asks you to create a website praising Confederate President Jefferson Davis, you can refuse. Or an actual neo-Confederate white guy could refuse on the grounds that ‘if Davis did a better job, the South would have won!’ Under this decision, anyone can refuse to create any message for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

Which leads us to Al Franken’s weird tweet:

So… we are pretty sure he is dunking on the decision and probably Ms. Smith herself. But there are several problems. First, Ms. Smith has not, to our knowledge, said anything bad about Jews. Second, she had a web design business, she was merely talking about expanding it to create wedding websites, so we don’t know where the “non-existent” comment comes from.

But third, and most basically, is he arguing that he the law should force him to ‘write homophobic & anti-Semitic jokes to express her hostility to gay-marriage & Jews in general’? Is that the outcome he prefers?

Or here’s a fourth option: He is a moron who thinks in a remarkably shallow manner.

To say this silliness got dragged is an understatement:

We are dead, too, but this kitten on our keyboard is going to finish this piece for us.

We hear he was once a politician and he used to write jokes.

We don’t know if he said anything anti-gay or anti-Semitic, but we do recall him stereotyping Asians in a manner one can only get away with if you are a leftist.

Or, alternatively, he is actually a fascist who wants to force people to speak the messages he approves of. But we are willing to accept stupidity as an explanation. Then again, stupidity and fascism are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you! The stupidity on display here is honestly baffling.

To be fair, if it was as low as Biden’s approval rating, we are pretty sure he would lose the capacity to breathe.

Honestly, the baffling thing is that the example he gave was a perfect illustration of why the decision was correct. If you are pro-gay or at least pro-gay-equality, you don’t have to create anti-gay messages. If you don’t hate Jews, you won’t be forced to say antisemitic messages. And yet, he seems to oppose this decision?

Ugh, we are going to stop before we get a headache.


Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Genard Musay

Genard is a reporter who reports on the biggest breaking news stories of the day as well as doing investigations and original stories

You may also like...